This article is an exercise in applied political theory. It applies the Lockean paradigm of political liberty, republican government, and the rule of law to one facet of current drug asset forfeiture policy-that of sharing forfeited assets with law enforcement agencies that initiate forfeitures (asset sharing). It is concluded that asset sharing violates fundamental political precepts, i.e., Lockean precepts, on which American government is founded. The key principle is that public servants' official actions must be guided by law: by policies enacted by the majority will and for the public good. Once public officers engage in official activity primarily for personal or institutional self-aggrandizement, they become judges in their own case and thus violate a basic principle of civil government. Even though asset sharing is authorized by statute, requires judicial authorization in some instances, and would probably be deemed constitutional, it violates Lockean principles nonetheless. Asset sharing has been publicly criticized because it has led to a number of egregious abuses, but it is the author's belief that, even if all abuses could be prevented, asset sharing must still be ended. This article advances a "substantive" and a "methodological" goal. Substantively, it joins a chorus of policy and legal critics of federal drug asset forfeiture policy. The methodological goal isto encourage application of political-theoretical analysis to the multidisciplinary field of criminal justice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 113 S.Ct. 2766, 125 L.Ed.2d 441 (1993).
2.
Arkes, H.
(1990). Beyond the Constitution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
Ashcraft, R.
(1986). Revolutionary politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
Ashcraft, R.
(1994). Locke's political philosophy. In V. Chappell (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Locke (pp. 226-251). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Ator, T. M.
(1994). Note: Constitutional Law-21 U.S.C. 881 and the Eighth Amendment: Application of the proportionality requirement to civil forfeitures: Austin v. United States, 113 S.Ct. 2801 (1993). University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Journal, 17, 95.
6.
Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993).
7.
Bailyn, B.
(1967). The ideological origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
Baum, D.
(1996). Smoke and mirrors: 7he war on drugs and the politics offailure. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
9.
Bennis v. Michigan, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 994, 134 L.Ed.2d 68 (1996).
10.
Bureau of Justice Statistics
. (1992). Drugs, crime and the justice system: A national report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
11.
Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (1974).
12.
Caplin & Drysdale v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989).
13.
Carmody, C.
(1992, November 2). Forfeiture laws get second look. National Law Journal, p. 7.
14.
Carpenter, W.
(1994). Reforming the civil drug forfeiture statutes: Analysis and recommendations. Temple Law Review, 67, 1087-1162.
15.
Chapman, S.
(1991, April 18). A weapon in the drug war and its innocent casualties. Chicago Tribune, p. 27 (Lexis News Library).
16.
Connally v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 245 (1977).
17.
Corcoran, D.
(1989, November 27). Legalizing drugs: Failures spur debate. New York Times, p. A15 (Lexis News Library).
18.
Crosby, D.
(1995, July 15). Proposal would let Crittenden keep seized drug money. The Commercial Appeal (Memphis), p. 2B.
19.
DeGeorge, G.
(1990, June 4). Grabbing dirty money-and horses, yachts, planes, cars.... Business Week, p. 152 (Lexis News Library).
20.
Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767, 114 S.Ct. 1937, 128 L.Ed.2d 767 (1994).
21.
Duke, S. B.
, & Gross, A. C. (1993). America's longest war: Rethinking our tragic crusade against drugs. New York, NY: Jeremy Tarcher/Putnam.
22.
Eskridge, W. N.
, & Frickey, P. P. (1994). Foreword: Law as equilibrium. Harvard Law Review, 108, 26-108.
23.
Farley, T. P.
(1994). Asset forfeiture reform: A law enforcement response. New York Law School Law Review, 39, 149-161.
24.
Fegelman, A.
(1995, May 15). O'Malley's plan angers Cook officials: State's attorney seeks direct receipt of drug-case proceeds. Chicago Tribune, p. I (Lexis News Library).
25.
Flaherty, M. S.
(1989). History "lite" in modern American constitutionalism. Columbia Law Review, 95, 523.
26.
Fried, D. J.
(1988). Rationalizing criminal forfeiture. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 79, 328-436.
27.
Garsson, R. M.
(1995, June 27). Capital briefs: Bill would limit U.S. in civil asset forfeiture. American Banker, p. 2 (Lexis News library).
28.
Gillespie, E.
, & Schellhas, B. (1994). Contract with America. New York, NY: Times Books/Republican National Committee.
29.
Goldsmith, M.
(1992). Asset forfeiture-civil forfeiture: Tracing the proceeds of narcotics trafficking. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
30.
Grant, R. W.
(1987). John Locke's liberalism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
31.
Grey, T. C.
(1979). Constitutionalism: An analytic framework. In J. R. Pennock & J. W. Chapman (Eds.), Constitutionalism (pp. 189-209). New York, NY: New York University Press.
32.
Guerra, S.
(1994). Reconciling federal asset forfeitures and drug offense sentencing. Minnesota Law Review, 78, 805-856.
33.
Hamburger, P. A.
(1994). Revolution and judicial review: Chief Justice Holt's opinion in City of London v. Wood. Columbia Law Review, 94, 2091-2153.
34.
Hartz, L.
(1955). The liberal tradition in America. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, World.
35.
Hayek, F. A.
(1994). The road to serfdom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
36.
Heilbroner, D.
(1994, December 11). The law goes on a treasure hunt. New York DTmes Magazine, pp. 70ff.
37.
Heymann, P. B.
(1994, July 9). Billions for new prisons? Wait a minute. New York Times, p. 15.
38.
Hofnann, J.
(1989, August 29). Personal health: Hawthorne police walk a thin blue line with "holistic" fitness. Los Angeles Times, Part5, p. 1 (Lexis News Library).
39.
Holmes, S.
(1993). The anatomy of antiliberalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
Holmes, S.
(1995). Passion and constraint: On the theory of liberal democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
41.
Horowitz, D.
(1995, February 13). Closer eye on drug asset money: Marin County's misuse of funds has repercussions throughout state. San Francisco Examiner, p. A-5 (Lexis News Library).
42.
Huyler, J.
(1995). Locke in America: The moral philosophy of the founding era. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
43.
Hyde, H.
(1995a). Forfeiting our property rights: Is your property safefrom seizure?Washington, DC: Cato Institute.
44.
Hyde, H.
(1995b, July 11). Guilty until proven innocent. USA Today, p. 9A (Lexis News Library).
45.
Jacobs, C.
, & Winton, R. (1995, May 29). U.S. scolds Pasadena police over drug funds; law enforcement: Purchase of five cars for senior officers with $120,000 in federal narcotics-seizure money is deemed a violation. City officials downplay the matter. Los Angeles Times, p. B-1 (Lexis News Library).
46.
Janofsky, M.
(1995, April 20). Baltimore grapples with idea of legalizing drugs. New York Times, p. A16 (Lexis News Library).
47.
Johnston, D.
(1993, November 25). F.B.I. shaken by inquiry into Idaho siege. New York Times, p. A1 (Lexis News Library).
48.
Johnston, D.
(1995, September 7). Teary-eyed white separatist recalls F.B.I. slaying of wife. New York Times, p. B14 (Lexis News Library).
49.
Jones v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, 819 F. Supp. 698 (M.D. Tenn. 1993).
50.
Jost, K.
(1995, July 4). Right, left join to limit seizure in crime cases: Forfeiture occurs even without conviction. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, p. A5 (Lexis News Library).
51.
Kessler, S. L.
(1995). Civil and criminal forfeiture: Federal and state practice (Vols. 1-3, loose-leaf). Deerfield, IL: Clark Boardman Callaghan.
52.
Labaton, S.
(1989, December 13). Federal judge urges legalization of crack, heroin and other drugs. New York Times, p. A16 (Lexis News Library).
53.
Levy, L. W.
(1996). A license to steal: The forfeiture of property. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
54.
Libretti v. United States, _ U.S., 116 S.Ct. 356, 133 L.Ed.2d 271 (1995).
55.
Locke, J.
(1988). Two treatises ofgovernment (student ed., edited with introduction and notes by Peter Laslett). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
56.
Marantz, S.
(1989, August 3). City council delays a vote on drug assets forfeiture bill. Boston Globe, p. 61 (Lexis News Library).
57.
Marion, N. E.
(1994). A history offederal crime control initiatives, 1960-1993. Westport, CT: Praeger.
58.
Marx, G.
(1988). Undercover: Police surveillance in America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
59.
Miller, R. L.
(1996). Drug warriors and their prey: From police power to police state. Westport, CT: Praeger.
60.
Milton, J. R.
(1994). Locke's life and times. In V. Chappell (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Locke (pp. 5-25). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
61.
Moses, P.
(1990, November 26). Fighting for their buildings: Anti-drug forfeiture law putting landlords on the spot. Newsday, p. 4 (Lexis News Library).
62.
National Public Radio
. (1993, January 29). New Jersey may be first state to relax forfeiture laws. Morning Edition (Lexis News Library).
63.
Packer, H. L. (1968). The limits of the criminal sanction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
64.
Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).
65.
Pilon, R.
(1994). Can American asset forfeiture law be justified?New York Law School Law Review, 39, 31 1-333.
66.
Platte, M.
(1990, October 30). Duffy paid legal bills with funds seized in raids. Los Angeles Times, p. BI (Lexis News Library).
67.
Pocock, J. G. A.
(1975). The Machiavellian moment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
68.
Powers, R. G.
(1987). Secrecy and power: The life of J. Edgar Hoover. New York, NY: The Free Press.
69.
Purdy, M.
(1995, July 2). Bars don't stop flow of drugs into the prisons. New York Times (national ed.), p. A1.
70.
Rainey, J.
(1989, October 19). Loot's finder, Torrance clash over $24,000. Los Angeles Times, p. B3 (Lexis News Library).
71.
Republic National Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U.S. 80, 113 S.Ct. 554, 121 L.Ed.2d 474 (1992).
72.
Rose, L. J.
(1990, November 29). Police chiefs criticize forfeiture ruling. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. 3A (Lexis News Library).
73.
Scheingold, S. A.
(1991). The politics ofstreet crime: Criminalprocess and cultural obsession. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
74.
Scripps Howard News Service
. (1991a, November 18). Congress to probe drug case seizures of cash, property. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p. IA (Lexis News Library).
75.
Scripps Howard News Service
. (1991b, December 22). Couple gets back house lost to drug law. Chicago Tribune, p. 6 (Lexis News Library).
76.
Secret sharers: Suffolk law officers must cooperate or they'll endanger their undercover colleagues
. (1991, May 2). Newsday, p. 76 (Lexis News Library).
77.
Shapiro, M.
(1981). Courts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
78.
Smith, M.
(1995, January 6). Seizure law increasingly labeled as un-American. Houston Chronicle, p. A-1 (Lexis News Library).
79.
Stahl, M. B.
(1992). Asset forfeiture, burdens of proof and the war on drugs. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 83, 274-337.
80.
Swickard, J.
(1995, February 2). The cops, the cash, and the scramble. Detroit Free Press, p. Fl.
81.
Treaster, J. B.
(1993, December 19). The nation: It's not legalization, but a user-friendly drug strategy. New York Times, Section 4, p. 5 (Lexis News Library).
82.
Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927).
83.
United States v. Alston, 717 F.Supp. 378 (M.D. N.C. 1989), aff'd, 902 F.2d 267 (4th Cir. 1990).
84.
United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 114 S.Ct. 492, 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993).
85.
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984).
86.
United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600 (1989).
87.
United States v. 92 Buena Vista Ave., 507 U.S. 111, 113 S.Ct. 1126, 122 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).
88.
United States v. Real Property, 799 F.Supp. 824 (S.D. Ohio 1992).
89.
United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S., 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996).
90.
United States v. Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Board of Education, 902 F.2d 267 (4th Cir. 1990).
91.
U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy
. (1995). National drug control strategy: Strengthening communities' response to drugs and crime. Washington, DC: U.S. Govemment Printing Office.
92.
U.S. Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs
. (1990). Hearing: Oversight of "high risk" assetforfeiture programs at the Justice Department and the Customs Service, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., July 24, 1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
93.
U.S. Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs
. (1991). Hearing: The effectiveness of the management of assetforfeiture programs at the Justice and Treasury departments, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., April 25, 1991. Washington, DC: U.S. Govemment Printing Office.
94.
Walker, S.
(1980). Popularjustice: A history of American criminaljustice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
95.
Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972).
96.
Whren v. United States, — U.S. — 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996).
97.
Williams, C.
(1995, May 2). Court: Homes subject to drug forfeiture laws. Detroit News, p. B4 (Lexis News Library).
98.
Wood, G. S.
(1972). The creation of the American republic: 1776-1787. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
