Keep working to fix forfeiture laws

We agree with the fundamental justification for asset forfeiture: Crime shouldn't pay. But as we've argued in these pages before, current Iowa law doesn't adequately protect against an equally important corollary: Namely, that the potential for a payout cannot influence enforcement of our laws.

A recent Iowa Supreme Court decision offers some hope for change, but does not go far enough.

The state high court, in the matter of property seized from Robert Pardee, ruled that police cannot prolong a traffic stop to investigate potential unrelated crimes without reasonable suspicion of those crimes. Doing so it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the court found, in keeping with a similar U.S. Supreme Court decision.

The case, which involved out-of-state motorists stopped along I-80, provides clarity to Iowa law enforcement involved in criminal interdiction efforts, especially those that specifically target of out-of-state vehicles. But the ruling does not address the larger issues - mandates that require forfeiture proceeds be funneled back into the law enforcement activities that produce forfeitures and a lack of transparency that makes it difficult to track the ways in which forfeiture proceeds are distributed and spent. We renew our call for lawmakers to address these critical concerns.

It is in the public interest to deny criminals access to the profits of their crimes. But that interest cannot be allowed to overpower the rights of business owners and motorists.

Short of legislative remedies, more clarity must come from the courts. In this most recent case, Justice David Wiggins provided a reasonable path forward.

While agreeing with the court's decision in regards to the Fourth Amendment, Wiggins notes: 'I would go further and find a pretextual stop violates article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution.”

We agree. The state constitution is clear: 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable seizures and searches shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons and things to be seized.”

Clearly, public safety is important, as is taking profit out of crime. But neither are important enough to trump our Constitutional rights.

' Comments: (319) 398-8469; editorial@thegazette.com