Source: http://www.csdp.org/edcs/page41.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:12:52+00:00

Document:
Rationale: Over the past 30 years, in the name of winning the Drug War, citizens have been subjected to a dramatic erosion of such constitutional rights as: protection against illegal search and seizure, excessive fines, double jeopardy, and cruel and unusual punishment; the right to due process before being punished with property forfeitures and economic penalties; and the presumption of innocence.
the Missouri Revised Codes, and a Missouri Supreme Court decision.129 This type of behavior indicates the lengths to which law enforcement agencies will go to pocket forfeited assets, and illustrates the corrupting influence of forfeiture laws. Crime-fighting should not be a profit-making venture for the government, nor should the seizure of property undermine our efforts to reduce drug abuse and violent crimes in America.
Recommendation 2: Restore voting rights to non-violent drug offenders and allow unhindered public referenda and initiatives.
Even those of us who have not been convicted of a crime, can find our constitutional right to vote curtailed because of the drug war. As citizens throughout the country are presented with ballot initiatives to allow medical access to marijuana, opponents of the concepts have sought to block citizens from even holding the vote. In Washington, DC, Congress barred the District government from expending any funds which would certify a law that reduces penalties for marijuana. District residents may vote, however, to increase penalties for marijuana. This means that for the first time in history, Congress has decided to control what types of elections can be held outside of the federal process and outlawed those votes which do not match the prevailing ideology of the Congress. At the time this document is being written, a lawsuit is pending in federal court on this very issue. Voters in Colorado and Arizona have faced similar obstacles, but Arizona voters have voted a second time in favor of medical marijuana and voters in Colorado have used the courts to force the election board to allow their initiative to proceed in 2000. The right of citizens to vote on any issue is the heart and soul of a democracy; any effort to derail that process subverts the will of the people and the spirit of our Constitution.
Recommendation 3: Restore civil liberties undermined by current drug policies.
These rights can be restored by legislation or court decisions which recognize that the Fourth Amendment147 prohibits unreasonable searches  this means that searches of people or their property require either a search warrant or probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. If we develop a policy based on public health strategies there will no longer be a need for the intrusive police powers permitted in the last two decades of aggressive drug enforcement, nor the adversarial relationship between police and citizens.
118 HR 1835, Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, was introduced by Rep. Hyde (R-IL) and 29 co-sponsors (17 Dems., 12 Reps.) on June 10th, 1997.
119 Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1997. (1998), pp. 371-2.
121 Bennis v. Michigan, U.S. 116 S. Ct. 994 (1996).
122 United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 361 (1984). United States v. Real Property Located at 6625 Zumirez Drive, 845 F. Supp. 725, 733 (1994).
123 Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972); 19 U.S. C. § 1615.
124 19 U.S.C. 1608 (1988). Also see "Win at All Costs: Government Misconduct in the Name of Expedient Justice," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, (November - December 1998), Bill Moushey.
125 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1615.
126 Janzen, Sandra. (1992, January). Asset Forfeiture, Vol. 13 "Informants and Undercover Investigations." Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
127 Blumenson, E. and E. Nilsen. (1998, Winter). "Policing for Profit: The Drug War's Hidden Economic Agenda." University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 65, pp. 35-114.
128 Directive #89-1. (1989, June 21). Memorandum from Acting Deputy Attorney General Edward S. G. Dennis, Jr., to inter alia, All U.S. Attorneys, contained in DOJ Asset Forfeiture Manual, V. 3. See also Directive 91-7. (1991, May). Asset Forfeiture Talking Points.
129 Dillon, Karen. (1999, January 2). "Police Keep Cash Intended for Education." Kansas City Star.
130 Jamie Fellner and Marc Mauer. (1998). Losing the Vote: The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States. Human Rights Watch (New York) and The Sentencing Project (Washington, DC), p. 1.
132 Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association, 489 U.S. 602 (1989).
133 Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983); Florida v. Rodriquez, 469 U.S. 1 (1984); United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).
134 United States v. Place, 426 U.S. 606 (1983).
135 Veronia School District v. Acton, 115 S. Ct. 2386 (1995).
136 United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982).
137 United States v. Knott, 460 U.S. 276 (1983).
138 Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
139 Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984).
140 United States v. Dunn, 107 S.Ct. 1134 (1987).
141 California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986); Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)..
142 United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976).
143 Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
144 United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971).
145 California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 25 (1988).
146 Janzen, Sandra. (1992). Asset Forefeiture, Vol. 13, "Informants and Undercover Investigations." Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice.
[T]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched or things to be seized.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1615
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.