Asset Forfeiture and Governor Janklow's Barn: Drugwar.com

Asset Forfeiture and Governor Janklow's Barn

Have you lost property in South Dakota due to asset forfeiture "laws"?

If so, please read and respond.

An absentee landlord rents property to a woman and a couple of small
children. On the property are a barn, a shed and a trailer house. The
landlord meets the tenants only once (maybe). The landlord -- a notable
"drug warrior" -- takes no precautions to limit access to the property,
which is prime territory for drug use, manufacture and sale, being located
just outside a major metropolitan area. The landlord knows virtually
nothing about his tenants.

The barn, shed, and a camper trailer burn down. Investigators find
"spoons, syringes and methamphetamine" in the ashes.

Obviously, the property has committed a crime. It will be forfeited to the
state. Right? After all, that's what would happen to you and me.

Well, maybe not. The property, near Sioux Falls, is owned by the Governor
of South Dakota, Bill Janklow. Janklow has placed himself above the law on
numerous occasions, and law enforcement officers have seemed
little-inclined to contravene his directives.

The Sioux Falls Argus Leader is following up on this irony. Lee Williams,
a former police officer and now reporter for the Argus Leader, wants to
talk to folks whose property (car, house, motorcycle, etc.) has been
forfeited because someone alleged it had been involved in a "drug" crime
of some sort.

If you, or someone you know, has been victimized by the cruel and
unconstitutional asset forfeiture laws, please let me know. Lee Williams
wants to put a "couple of human faces" with this story. You could simply
call Lee Williams at the Argus Leader (605-941-2365). However, please make
sure your story has the following elements:

1. The forfeited property was located in South Dakota.

2. The "crime" was only alleged, or was so petty as to make forfeiture an
obvious travesty. Often, forfeitures are exercised on the basis of a
simple allegation, with no further evidence. (example: A teenager visits
his aunt and sells a bag off the porch to an informant. The aunt loses the
house as a result.) Most South Dakotans probably believe that crank
dealers SHOULD have their houses taken, but probably do not believe a
landlord should lose his property because a tenant sold crank without his
knowledge. Janklow, however, almost certainly endorses the current
grab-it-if-you-can approach to asset forfeiture.

Incidentally, I am on the ballot as a candidate for Attorney General, and
reform of asset forfeiture laws is a major plank in my platform.

Please, respond with your story if you have one.

Best regards,
Bob Newland
South Dakota NORML