FEAR-List Bulletin posted by Brenda Grantland, 1-22-98
 

Susan Wells posted this question on FEAR-List earlier today:

> How does the 4th Circuit justify Lynn v. West after 405K/ Ursery? Don't
> get me wrong; I think this is good news, but wouldn't the U.S. Supreme
> Court decision have stopped a decision like this?

The Supreme Court case that spawned FEAR's double jeopardy litigation in 1994-1996 (until Ursery/$405K) was based on the Supreme Court's holding in Montana Dept. of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, a 1993 case which held that drug tax stamps are "punishment" for double jeopardy purposes. After making that broad pronouncement, the Supreme Court began backing away from applying double jeopardy in any "civil" case -- including a new ruling this year in Hudson. Kurth Ranch is still standing, however. Amazingly, what they are saying is that having to buy marijuana stamps is "punishment" but losing everything you own in life -- your house, car, bank accounts, etc. isn't.

Go figure!

If you would like further reading on this subject, read the Supreme Court decisions. Most of the leading Supreme Court forfeiture cases throughout time can be found in the FEAR law library under Supreme Court decisions. Compare the logic in Kurth to the logic in Bennis v. Michigan or Ursery and you'll see how much the "politics" of asset forfeiture have infected the Supreme Court in its interpretation of the Constitution.