Police Steering Drug Arrests to Seize Property?

     -- by Ross Regnart, F.E.A.R. Chronicles, Vol 1. No. 3,
(August, 1992)

     Owners of residential property, bars and restaurants have
reason to fear police property seizures.  In 1984, Congress
expanded drug laws to allow government to charge property and
physical locations with crime -- not the owner. Since property and
physical locations have no Due Process Rights, government has often
tried to refuse the owners jury trials, ignore rules of evidence
and condone illegal searches.  Residential rental property, bars
and restaurants are sitting ducks for "Structured Drug Arrests" at
their property and business locations.

     Structured Drug Arrests are the result of drug agents setting
up drug purchases at a particular property or location.  Drug
agents who steer drug dealers to rental property and other
commercial locations to sell drugs to an agent can cause the
revocation or suspension of bar licenses, seizure of rental
properties and the ruination of citizens' lives.  The innocent
owner, however, can only look to the integrity of drug agents to
disclose to government prosecutors that the drug arrest was
directed to a particular location.  Is it possible for drug agents
who know that their employment is contingent on funds from seizure
to act fairly in the matter?

     In 1989, California passed laws which only required drug
agents to purchase drugs at a bar location for three consecutive
days to cause revocation of a bar owner's license.  Due Process
rights lost, it is no longer necessary for state government to
prove innocent bar owners had knowledge of drug sales taking place
at their premises.  State and Federal Government's recent authority
to charge locations and property  -- not the owner -- with crime,
can easily be used as a weapon of financial destruction against any
person, group or business in the hands of a corrupt government
official.

     DEA vehemently states: DEA would never seize the property of
innocent owners "unless" through testimony it was proven an owner
had knowledge of drug activity at their property.  DEA's canned
message can be had by calling any one of their many federal DEA
offices.  DEA says it would never seize rental property from an
innocent owner unless it has proof the property owner had knowledge
of drug activity at their property.  What DEA won't discuss is how
DEA often gets the testimony to prove a property owner had
knowledge of drug activity at his/her property.

     Prosecutors often make sentencing deals with arrested drug
dealers prior to trial for return testimony.  Someone about to go
to prison would be tempted for a sentence reduction or immunity
from prosecution to help the government's seizure case by lying,
stating that drugs were openly dealt at a property.  It is this
kind of testimony that often can not be refuted by an innocent
owner.

     Under the 1984 amendments to the federal drug laws, it is not
necessary that charged drug dealers on real property be convicted
in order to seize real property from an innocent owner.  Government
need only prove from testimony that drug activity took place at
their property.  It is ironic that innocent property owners can
lose their entire investment for the unknown drug crimes committed
by a tenant or occupant.

     Should Congress or the public expect police property seizure
to be administered fairly by drug enforcement agencies who, in many
locales, know their employment is contingent on funds from seizure? 
In 1984, Congress passed horribly written drug seizure laws which
amount to a matter of conjecture.  DEA has no clear definition of
what acts on the part of a property owner constitute vigilance to
discover or mitigate drug activity at their property.  Should
Congress expect drug enforcement agencies to be equitable when DEA
operates under standards they themselves cannot define?

     If the Drug Enforcement Administration is sincere in stating
that they would never seize a property from an innocent owner, they
should not object to Congress initiating strong legislation to
protect innocent property owners from police seizure.