Where I stand—Brian Greenspun: A license to steal

Friday, March 16, 2001 | 10:15 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

YOU FORFEIT, I win.

I remember in an earlier life when athletic endeavors were paramount, there was only one thing better than beating an opponent for the win and that was winning by default. When the match was forfeited, it meant that you didn't have to even break a sweat to advance in the life of sports and that you would be fresh for whatever came next.

That, of course, was in the world of sport. In the world of real life, however, forfeiture means something entirely different. And in the state of Nevada, the forfeiture that is on many people's minds is the ability of law enforcement to grab the assets of any individual or company which it suspects of some criminal wrongdoing, regardless of the ultimate guilt or innocence of that person.

The reason Nevadans are talking these days is because of a bill in the Nevada Legislature, Senate Bill 36, that, if passed, would increase the standard of proof from a mere preponderance of evidence to clear and convincing before the state can snatch the money or property of a citizen with little more than a how-do-you-do. Simply put, that is a very small step toward some semblance of fairness in a criminal justice system which has allowed a very heavy-handed approach to pre-conviction confiscation.

The idea for such forfeitures is actually a good one, as most ideas that have become law once were. When law enforcement convinced the states and the federal government to give such a broad confiscatory power to police agencies, it was to help them thwart the drug dealers and Mafia kingpins who had so much ill-gotten gain from their criminal enterprises that they would either run from authorities or, perish the thought, buy their way out of trouble. By snatching their cash before they could pay their attorneys or their bondsmen, law agencies drove a big wedge into the revolving doors of justice that worked well and often against the little guy, but not so regularly against the well-heeled and well-organized offenders.

But, like most good ideas in this country, this one has been given to abuse. What was designed as a great tool to be used against the bad guys became a sledge hammer against the innocent. Horror stories abound about confiscations that ruined the lives of people who never did anything wrong. The law itself may be a good one, but in many cases those who executed it were allowed to abuse it on American citizens. Blame it on a lack of oversight, or in some cases, an incentive to look the other way.

That brings us to Nevada in 2001 and the Legislature's effort to rein in the terror that abuses of this law have allowed.

A hearing was held in the Senate Judiciary Committee last month. The fireworks were amply reported, especially the testimony of one of Las Vegas' better known victims of the confiscatory rules, Billy Walters. Billy is a very well-known golf course builder and operator in Clark County. He is also a golfing buddy of mine, but only when his cash reserves have been depleted and he needs some easy money.

He does have another life, though, and that is as one of the country's most astute and active football bettors. And therein lies the trail which took him to the legislative halls to testify before the committee headed by State Sen. Mark James of Las Vegas. A number of years ago Billy's betting operation was raided by the police in an effort launched back East to stop an illegal bookmaking operation. I suppose to many people, betting and bookmaking are the same thing, but to the law and to those of us who live in Nevada, there is a world of difference. The most important one, of course, is that bookmaking is illegal and betting is not. Or, should I say, was not when the raids took place.

To the surprise of some and the potential glee of others, some $2.8 million of Walter's betting money was snatched by the cops, who must have initially believed it was the fruit of crime, i.e., bookmaking. Much to their chagrin, I suspect, they later learned that betting was the order of the day and bookmaking was nowhere to be found. That should have put a crimp in their plans to keep nearly $3 million of somebody else's money. Now, here's where it gets interesting.

The Clark County district attorney recuses himself and sends the case to Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa. She proceeds to indict Billy not once, not twice but three times on the same charges of gambling. Each time the case has been thrown out of court. It is on appeal and the word is out that she intends to indict a fourth time. There is, of course, no charm in any of this by now. When asked why this keeps going on despite the lower court's tossing of the complaints, Billy will tell you to follow the money.

His money, to be precise. He claims that the Metro boys have a slush fund of sorts, kind of an off-budget affair that allows their officers to get paid overtime and other benefits that aren't accounted for in the Metro budget. Metro, of course, says no way. They better be right, because black-bag jobs are supposed to be the province of the bad guys, not the good ones.

In any event, Billy has been pushing the new legislation because he is convinced that the police should have a standard to meet that is greater than a mere preponderance, else everyone will be subject to confiscation of their assets and most people won't have the wherewithal or the gumption to fight back. He also would like to see some accountability for the millions that get taken away, never returned and spent by law enforcement authorities. If that is true, he is absolutely right.

The question of the day is whither goes Senate Bill 36? There is some rumbling that it may wind up in one of those big drawers that legislators have when they don't want to deal with the controversy. That wouldn't be a good idea because what we are talking about is the basic right of every citizen to be free from oppressive government action, and when there are complaints made, full and fair hearings should follow.

As for claims of slush funds and the like, there is an easy and appropriate answer there, too. If the monies confiscated are given over to police agencies to use as they see fit, whether to augment their funds for overtime and other bennies or for off-budget capers that the authorities don't want open to scrutiny, such a practice should cease immediately. Any funds confiscated from citizens under this law should go into the general fund and from that fund local government should authorize any needed and responsible payments for police activities.

If we are encouraging the police to take our money improperly just so they can pay themselves what they need to do their job, which is protecting us, then we are nuts and we are to blame. If the legislative hearings learn nothing else this year, it must be whether or not these funds are being properly accounted for and whether or not we are improperly encouraging the police to treat us badly.

So, Senator James, please make sure your colleagues continue to air this issue fully and publicly and keep it out of your drawer. This is not just about money or property. There is something far more important at stake.

It is the concept that we are each innocent until proven guilty. It is an ideal worth spending the time to uphold.

archive