Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, June 29, 1993 TAG: 9306290140
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
But the high court ruled 5-4 in a separate case that authorities do not violate free-speech rights when they seize virtually all assets from pornographers who sold some obscene materials.
The forfeiture of money and property by drug dealers is punishment "and, as such, is subject to the limitations of the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause," Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in the court's unanimous ruling in a drug case from South Dakota.
The high court rejected the Justice Department's argument that such a forfeiture is not punishment, but simply removes property that might be used to commit future crimes.
The justices ordered lower courts to review the case of Richard Lyle Austin to determine whether his constitutional rights were violated by the forfeiture of his home and business after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge.
In the pornography case from Minnesota, the court said the forced closing of Ferris Alexander's multimillion-dollar "adult entertainment" business in 1989 did not violate his free-speech rights.
Agents seized and destroyed all of Alexander's inventory because the store sold four obscene magazines and three obscene videos.
Alexander contended the forfeiture under the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act amounted to an unlawful "prior restraint" of the non-obscene erotica he sold.
"The RICO forfeiture order in this case does not forbid [Alexander] from engaging in any expressive activities in the future, nor does it require him to obtain prior approval for any expressive activities," Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the court.
"It only deprives him of specific assets that were found to be related to his previous racketeering violations."
Ruling otherwise would let racketeers shield their assets by investing them in some form of expressive activity, the chief justice said.
Writing in dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the forfeiture of non-obscene material "is a remedy with no parallel in our cases."
"The court's failure to reverse this flagrant violation of the right of free speech and expression is a deplorable abandonment of fundamental First Amendment principles," Kennedy wrote.
The high court ordered lower courts to restudy Alexander's case to determine whether the forfeiture violated the constitutional limit on excessive fines.
Rehnquist's opinion was joined by Justices Byron White, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
by CNB