John Ashcroft

[Harmon Seaver]

1. Cops and Robbers:  Exposés Find Ashcroft Encouraged
   Constitutional Violations in Missouri Asset Forfeiture Cases,
   Police Agencies Kept Funds Intended for Schools
   http://www.drcnet.org/wol/169.html#copsrobbers

An article by investigative journalist Dan Forbes, released
yesterday evening by the Progressive Review
(http://www.prorev.org), has confirmed something that drug war
observers had strongly suspected:  John Ashcroft, as Missouri
Governor, agreed to "look the other why" while state police
federalized asset forfeitures in order to keep money seized in
their agencies -- violating a Missouri constitutional requirement
that forfeiture funds instead go to the state's school system.

If this information receives the attention it merits, it will
raise serious questions about the AG nominee's willingness to
obey the spirit as well as the letter of the law.  Information
provided in recent weeks by DRCNet made the case that legislation
sponsored by John Ashcroft as Senator showed a disregard for the
1st and 4th amendments to the bill of rights of the US
Constitution (http://www.stopjohnashcroft.org).  Now, hard
evidence exists showing a disregard for the Missouri state
constitution as well, in Ashcroft's actual practice as the
state's chief executive.  Strongly suggestive evidence of the
same was also presented, earlier the same day, by syndicated
columnist Arianna Huffington.

Asset forfeiture reform is an issue that has recently received
bipartisan attention.  Legislation championed by Rep. Henry Hyde
(R-IL) to curb some excesses of federal asset forfeiture law was
passed by an overwhelming margin in the House of Representatives,
and unanimously in the Senate, last year.  The issue is drawing
increased scrutiny in state governments as well; for example,
forfeiture was a major topic at a recent conference of southern
state legislators, with action promised by some attendees
(http://www.drcnet.org/wol/161.html#southernforfeiture).

Some states have specifically addressed the issue of forfeiture
federalizations.  A ballot initiative passed by Utah voters this
November diverts asset forfeiture proceeds into education, a
similar initiative in Oregon into drug treatment.  The Missouri
Constitution requires that asset forfeiture funds be transferred
to the school system.  In Utah and Oregon, a court hearing would
be required before any funds are transferred to the federal
government, and would mandate that any funds returned would be
used as specified in the initiatives.

More than spending choices lies at the heart of such
requirements.  One of the harms of asset forfeiture is the
distortion of law enforcement priorities and standards -- police
agencies will sometimes choose cases that promise a lucrative
forfeiture take over other cases with greater bearing on public
safety -- and the lure of forfeited drug money provides an
incentive to take shortcuts with suspects' Constitutional rights.
Requiring that forfeited funds go to budgetary areas other than
law enforcement is intended to reduce those risks.

In order to circumvent state laws imposing such requirements,
however, police agencies will often turn forfeiture cases over to
the federal government, which in turn will return most of the
money back to the state or local police, rather than to the
places the state legislatures intended.  This is what happened in
Missouri -- where a provision of the state's Constitution,
affirmed by the courts and the legislature, directs that
forfeiture proceeds go to the schools instead.

The aiding and abetting, by a top state official and the US
Department of Justice, of a constitutional violation by that
state's police agencies to keep money that lawfully should have
gone to the state's schools, could well be seen as having bearing
on that official's suitability to head the Department of Justice.

Read Dan Forbes' detailed expose at http://www.prorev.com -- and
Arianna Huffington's column at
http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/011801.html -- and
decide for yourself.