HIGH COURT CURTAILS AUTHORITY TO SEIZE DRUG-LINKED PROPERTY

                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, February 25, 1993                   TAG: 9302250198
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL                    PAGE: A1   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: The New York Times
DATELINE: WASHINGTON                                LENGTH: Medium
HIGH COURT CURTAILS AUTHORITY TO SEIZE DRUG-LINKED PROPERTY
The Supreme Court on Wednesday rebuffed the Justice Department's assertion of sweeping power to confiscate property tainted in any way by an illegal drug transaction.
The court held 6-3 that a New Jersey woman who bought a house with money the government later traced to her boyfriend's drug dealing was entitled to defend herself as an "innocent owner" against the government's efforts to seize the house under a 1978 drug forfeiture law.
The woman, Beth Ann Goodwin of Rumson, insisted that she did not know that the gift of $240,000 from her boyfriend was the result of marijuana trafficking.
The decision, surprising for a court that has backed the government on numerous fronts in its anti-drug efforts, affirmed a 1991 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia.
That court accused the Justice Department of trying to use its forfeiture authority in a way that would "essentially serve to emasculate the innocent owner defense" that Congress included in the drug forfeiture law.
The Justice Department's basic argument was that the proceeds of an illegal drug transaction actually belong to the government and in turn convert any subsequently acquired property into government property as well.
Writing Wednesday for a plurality of four justices, Justice John Paul Stevens said the government's argument "would effectively eliminate the innocent owner defense in almost every imaginable case in which proceeds could be forfeited."
Justices Harry Blackmun, Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter joined the plurality opinion. In a separate concurring opinion, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also voted to uphold the 3rd Circuit.
Justices Anthony Kennedy and Byron White and Chief Justice William Rehnquist dissented.

by Archana Subramaniam by CNB