(visit last week's Week Online)

or check out The Week Online archives

1. Exemplary Citizen to be Extradited on 25 Year-Old $10 Marijuana Conviction

[NOTE TO OUR READERS: We present this story as it poses an interesting ethical question. Is escape an ethical response to a conviction under a bad policy? Even if the convicted would have served only three months time? And should twenty-five years of exemplary life cause a prosecutor to choose not to seek the return of such an escapee? It is, in the end, the odd outcome of a flawed system, and we offer here the perspectives of the attorneys on either side.]

Alfred Martin will be heading back to Virginia after a Michigan court ordered him extradited on charges that he walked away from a one year prison sentence in 1974. (Martin was sentenced to ten years, but all but one year of the sentence was suspended.) Martin had been sentenced for selling $10 worth of marijuana to a co-worker, and now faces charges of escape, as well as theft by conversion for failing to complete payments on a stereo and a television that he had bought on installment shortly before his original arrest and conviction.

Martin, a broker for the Mortgage Company of Michigan, had led "an exemplary life since his conviction," according to Judge William Callahan, who nevertheless ruled in favor of the state of Virginia. Callahan also said that Martin and his family had been "a credit to the state" during their twenty-five years in Michigan.

Virginia had tried once before to have Martin extradited, in 1976. At that time, then-Governor William Milikan granted him legal asylum in Michigan. Since that time, however, several Supreme Court rulings have supported the rights of states to retrieve persons from other states regardless of the circumstances.

Gregory R. Neidle, Martin's attorney, told The Week Online, "the prosecutor (Joan Ziglar of Martinsville, VA) materially misrepresented Mr. Martin's situation both to the Governor of Virginia and to the Michigan court. There was no indication in any of her papers that my client had previously fought this for three years resulting in the granting of asylum. Legally, therefore, we believe that Mr. Martin has been wrongly extradited. From the standpoint of justice, he is a man who had no record prior to his arrest twenty-five years ago, and he's had no record since he's arrived in Michigan. He's a mortgage broker, a successful man, with a wife of twenty-six years and three children. There is absolutely no reasonable justification for sending Alfred Martin back to prison."

Joan Ziglar has been the prosecutor in the town of Martinsville, population 16,000, for just under a year. Martinsville, she says, has a serious drug problem, in part due to its midpoint status between New York and Florida. According to Ziglar, approximately 70% of her cases are either directly or indirectly drug-related. She spoke with The Week Online:

WOL: Mr. Martin walked away from his sentence almost twenty-five years ago. Why, after all this time, did you decide to pursue this case?

Ziglar: When I was first elected, I sat down with my staff to discuss our priorities. One of those priorities was to pursue extradition of felons who had fled the jurisdiction. Mr. Martin fits that description and when the state of Michigan notified us that they had stopped him, I reopened his file just like I would for any other fugitive. I would also mention that unlike other extradition cases, where someone has fled before trial, Mr. Martin had been convicted here. He had escaped from detention.

WOL: But even the judge in Michigan commented that he had led an exemplary life there. What do you hope to accomplish by putting him back in jail?

Ziglar: Well, there are others here who are awaiting trial, and I want them all to know that if you run, no matter how far or long, we will come after you. So you might as well stay and take your medicine now. I also believe that we have to send a message that we will fight drugs, even marijuana. America is fed up with drugs, and I believe that it is my job to fight for a safer America.

WOL: So now he will face his original sentence plus two others, right?

Ziglar: Mr. Martin faces a maximum of five years for his escape, and a maximum of twenty years for the felony theft-by conversion charge. I would add that while he had originally been sentenced to two five year terms, all but six months of each of those had been suspended. And, going by the parole rules in 1974, he would have only served a total of three months of that year. Today, under truth in sentencing, he would have had to serve 85% of that year.

WOL: And will you seek the maximum?

Ziglar: Other than cases such as murder, I never ask for a specific sentence. I will argue to the jury that Mr. Martin is guilty of the charges, and that he should be punished appropriately. I will leave it to the jury to make the determination on what that may be.

Letters to the Editor
Editorial Pages
Box 85333
Richmond,VA 23293
fax: (804) 775-8090

Letters to the Editor
Virginia Pilot
P.O. Box 449
Norfolk, VA 23501-0449
fax: (757) 446-2051
[email protected]

Progress Index
15 Franklin
Petersburg, VA 23803

2. Supreme Court Strikes Down Car Search Law

Hanna Liebman

Patrick Knowles was stopped for going 43 in a 25-mile-an-hour zone, and the officer issued a citation in lieu of arrest (which is permitted in Iowa for minor offenses). The officer then searched Mr. Knowles's passenger compartment, and found marijuana and a pipe. The Supreme Court earlier had approved a practice known as "search incident to arrest," whereby officers may search a car fully if an arrest is made. In Knowles, the Court said unequivocally that the search incident to arrest doctrine does not extend to situations when an arrest is not actually made.

The Court's opinion centered on the fact that there are two justifications for the search incident doctrine -- danger to the police, and preservation of evidence -- neither of which is present during a traffic stop to the extent that they outweigh the 4th Amendment concern. In an earlier case, Whren v. United States, the Court had held that officers' decisions to stop cars for traffic violations were not subject to scrutiny as to the actual motivations as long as there was probable cause as to traffic violations. Thus, the Court here was not concerned with whether there was a pretext in the Knowles stop of looking for drugs.

Though the issue was not raised here, it is important to note that many rights violations do occur in the service of drug enforcement. A good number of the landmark 4th Amendment cases have included drug searches and seizures. "Police are always looking for drugs, that's primarily the area where they make warrantless searches," says Paul Rosenberg of Des Moines, the attorney for Knowles. Adds Brooklyn Law School professor Susan N. Herman, who filed an amicus curiae brief in the case on behalf of the ACLU, often police who stop vehicles are "not highly concerned with the traffic. In Whren, they weren't even empowered to enforce traffic laws, they were vice squad!"

While a line of previous decisions have broadened the powers of officers in connection with car stops, the Knowles case can be hailed as something of a victory for 4th Amendment protections. Given that on the order of "50 million people a year are cited for traffic violations, there's a huge potential for abuse. I think everybody can be very happy this opinion came down," notes Rosenberg. This case does put a stop to a practice that some, such as Rosenberg, argue was becoming more prevalent. "This was just a new monster that was lurking," he says. "The Supreme Court basically slammed the door."

But while Knowles is a clear indication that the Court will not abide conduct that goes too far over the line, the opinion does not represent a marked shift in 4th Amendment jurisprudence, or in police behavior, warns professor Herman. For one thing, police can circumvent the prohibition by deciding to arrest the suspect, and then declining to follow through with the arrest if no contraband is discovered during the ensuing search. Herman calls that tactic "arrest incident to search." Despite her contention that the Knowles opinion is not a robust pronouncement of 4th Amendment values, Herman credits the opinion for what it does do, which is prevent the police from having "incredibly broad discretion to search any car" -- discretion, she says, that "we do see...is exercised in an arbitrary... manner." The Iowa Attorney General's office calls the practice of search incident to citation "rarely used" and acknowledges the Supreme Court's exhortation to police to use "other procedures [that are] available if they are concerned for their safety," such as ordering the occupants of a car to disembark.

Meanwhile, attorney Rosenberg suggests that the real area in which police need to look for other procedures is in enforcing drug laws. "Officers have plenty of tools to deal with drug laws without resorting to this," he points out.

3. CONGRESSIONAL REPORT: Citibank Facilitated Salinas Money Laundering

A Congressional report, released last week (12/5) says that executives of Citibank took in more than $100 million from Raul Salinas, brother of ex-Mexican President Carlos Salinas, and helped him to set up a complex web of offshore shell corporations, without attempting to verify the source of the money. Much of Salinas' fortune has since been seized by the Swiss government on suspicion that it represents protection money paid by drug traffickers.

The New York Times reports that Salinas' personal Citibank banker advised him to move the money offshore in the wake of his 1995 arrest for murder. According to the report, Citibank officials did finally warn the U.S. government about Salinas' suspicious transactions, but even then did not tell the government about the network of accounts and corporations that the bank had set up for him to shield the money.

Federal officials say that they have yet to determine whether or not Citibank broke any laws. According to the Times, both the Justice Department and the Federal Reserve Bank refused to cooperate with congressional investigators compiling the report.

Money laundering, and efforts by the federal government to attack the drug trade through the monitoring of financial transactions, has become a contentious issue in recent years. Frustrated in their attempts to make headway in the drug war, federal agencies have sought greater and greater powers both against financial institutions and individuals. Currently, the federal government requires institutions to report any transaction larger than $10,000. In addition, federal regulators are hoping to see the 106th Congress pass the controversial "Know Your Customer" legislation, which will make financial institutions responsible for investigating the source of nearly all of their clients funds, as well as for monitoring all transactions to determine if any "unusual" activity is instigated by a client, regardless of the size of those transactions.

Earlier this year, "Operation Casablanca," an 18-month investigation into drug-money laundering on both sides of the U.S.-Mexican border, was hailed as a success by the justice department. That operation netted $135 million, according to government estimates, and several dozen arrests, although none of those arrested were considered high-level players. Critics questioned the impact of even this "largest-ever" bust, when it has been estimated that proceeds of the drug trade laundered back into the legitimate economy total hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

Many economists believe that the idea of money laundering is itself problematic.

Richard Rahn, former Chief Economist of the United States Chamber of Commerce and author of the book, "The End Of Money: The Struggle For Financial Privacy" told The Week Online, "In the first place, money laundering is very poorly defined. So much so, in fact, that the government can pick almost any financial institution, go through their records, and make a case. Further, to make private industry responsible for policing private citizens is an improper abdication of the job of the enforcement agencies. There are very many legitimate reasons why a person would want to keep the details of financial transactions secret, and so the requirements, which are in effect due to the government's inability to enforce other laws, is invasive. The record-keeping required of these institutions is also quite costly and makes those businesses far less efficient.

"For my book, I did an analysis which found that the average cost to taxpayers per conviction for money laundering is over $100 million. And the truth is that in the digital age, where money can be moved so quickly and easily around the globe, only those who blunder will ever be caught. Clearly the bulk of the problem of illicit money stems from the unenforceable drug war. It is highly unlikely that we will ever put so much as a dent in the trade. It is exactly like Prohibition in the 1920's."

Read about the proposed "Know Your Customer" rules in Wired Online's "Banking With Big Brother" article, online at http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/16749.html.) Also worth checking out is the Dec. 10 issue of the Wall Street Journal, available online for a fee, at http://www.wsj.com. Richard Rahn is was interviewed for this week's DRCNN radio show, previewable online at http://www.drcnet.org/drcnn/.

4. Exciting Resources Available Online

"Drug War Facts," an extensive compilation of facts, stats and general background on a wide range of drug policy issues, is published online by Common Sense for Drug Policy and updated monthly. Check out Drug War Facts at http://www.csdp.org and visit it regularly to brush up on your numbers, prep for your next debate, or enhance your next letter to the editor.

"Win At All Costs," a landmark ten-part series that is the fruit of a ten-year investigation into federal prosecutorial misconduct, has been published by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The series, which will undoubtedly be considered for a Pulitzer Prize, details a culture of lawlessness among federal agents and prosecutors whose pursuit of convictions has come to overshadow their ostensible role as seekers of justice. You can find the series online at http://www.post-gazette.com/win/.

Last week, famed Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz granted an interview to DRCNet, in relation to his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee regarding perjury. Dershowitz touched on drug policy issues, and the corrosive effect of drug enforcement on police scruples (see http://www.drcnet.org/wol/069.html#perjury). We forgot to mention that the testimony itself is available online, at http://www.c-span.org/guide/executive/investigation/ -- follow the link to December 1.

The Lindesmith Center has a variety of new documents in its online library, including a "focal point" compilation of the research on safe injecting rooms, the National Research Council's 1982 report, "An Analysis of Marijuana Policy," articles on methadone maintenance, use of herbicides in drug crop eradication, Latin America drug policy, including discussions of militarization and the certification process, and more. Check out TLC's Recent Additions web page at http://www.lindesmith.org/library/new.html.

5. Job Opportunity

The Lindesmith Center, a division of the Open Society Institute, is seeking an experienced webmaster. Job responsibilities will include creating new content for the web site and online library; supervising part-time web assistants; monitoring new additions to the hard copy library; promoting the website by updating search engines; acting as a liaison with public; planning design changes and adding new technology; and troubleshooting.

Job requirements: BA, prior web site design/maintenance experience essential; knowledge of web excellent organizational skills; attentive to detail; interest in/knowledge of drug policy issues preferred; creative self-starter, able to work in fast-paced professional environment; available immediately.

Send letter, resume, salary requirements, three references to: Open Society Institute, Human Resources, Code WEB/TLC, 400 W. 59th Street, New York, New York 10019, or fax (212) 548-4663. The Open Society Institute is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

6. Fellowships and Academic Opportunities

The Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia will award nearly one half million dollars to outstanding graduate and undergraduate students -- fellowships range up to $12,000, and the deadline is December 31. Humane Studies Fellowships are awarded by the Institute for Humane Studies to support the work of outstanding students interested in the "classical liberal" tradition. Applications will be considered from those who (1) will be a full-time graduate student or undergraduate student with junior or senior standing in the 1999/00 academic year; (2) have a clearly demonstrated interest in the classical liberal/libertarian tradition, and 3) are interested in applying the principles of this tradition to their work. For more info, visit http://www.TheIHS.org.

Substance Abuse Policy Research Program 1998, Round IV: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is requesting proposals for research projects that will produce policy-relevant information about ways to reduce the harm caused by the use of tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs, or any combination thereof in the United States. This call for proposals is intended to encourage experts in public health, law, political science, medicine, sociology, criminal justice, economics, and other behavioral and policy sciences to address issues related to substance abuse, the nation's number one health problem. Projects supported are expected to increase understanding of public and private policy interventions to reduce the harm caused by the use of tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs; including the advantages, disadvantages, and potential impact of these policies. This program is intended to identify and assess policies that can reduce the harm caused by substance abuse; to analyze their feasibility, effectiveness, and likely consequences; and to help ensure that the understanding gained through these analyses will be used by decision makers in the public and private sectors. Letters of intent are due by December 16. For further information, visit http://www.phs.wfubmc.edu/sshp/rwj/rwj.htm, or contact Andrea Ebbers, Substance Abuse Policy Research Program, Department of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC 27157-1063, (336) 716-9714.

7. Giving the Gift of Hope

Running out of time and still don't know what to give your loved ones, friends or colleagues this holiday season? Consider giving them a copy of Shattered Lives: Portraits from America's Drug War -- it will be a powerful way of letting them know that you care about them, this country, and the injustice that is being perpetrated on a growing segment of the population.

DRCNet has teamed up with Human Rights '95 (www.hr95.org) for a special holiday offer: For just $25 complete, we will send a copy of Shattered Lives to your gift recipient, along with a card saying that this is a holiday gift from you, with best wishes for a peaceful, just, and free 1999! It will be sent by priority mail from the HR '95 office in El Cerrito, California, to make sure they get it in plenty of time for Christmas or Chanukah.

To order, send a check or money order for $25 (discounts available on quantities of three or more), to: DRCNet, 2000 P St., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036, or call us at (202) 293-8340 or fax to (202) 293-8344 to pay by credit card, or use our secured online credit card form at https://www.drcnet.org/cgi-shl/drcreg.cgi -- indicate in the comments box that you are purchasing a gift, and include the name and address of the person to whom you wish it to be sent, and how you would like the card addressed.

Giving the gift of knowledge is invaluable. People truly need to know what is going on in the name of the Drug War, and because this book tells personal stories from the front lines, everyone will find people in it with whom they can relate or sympathize. Give Shattered Lives to someone who has no idea just how out of control this Drug War is, or who as the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" mentality, or who just doesn't understand why you feel so passionately about this subject. Give it to someone who's taking risks without understanding the consequences, or to kids who need a warning before they start to experiment with drugs. Give it to a politician who doesn't understand how much harm they are doing, or to a minister who can use material for a sermon, or to a teacher who can use it as class material. Many nonviolent prisoners of the Drug War will be spending yet another holiday with prison guards rather than their loved ones. By helping their faces and stories to be known, you will be giving them a gift of hope this holiday season, and a chance for justice to prevail.

8. EDITORIAL: Human Rights Declared but Not Observed

by Adam J. Smith, DRCNet Associate Director

This past week marked the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the United Nations' Declaration on Human Rights. It is a remarkable document, written in the aftermath of the Holocaust, which acknowledges a commitment by the nations of the world to due process, equality, and personal freedom. Even today, while millions of people still live under conditions violative of both the letter and the spirit of the Declaration, it is held out as the marker of advanced society. It is shocking then, that fifty years after the world came together in agreement on standards for the treatment of the individual, the United States, its constitution the envy of billions of the world's citizens, pursues a policy which contradicts and offends those principles.

The drug war, and the ever-escalating effort to enforce its unenforceable prohibitions, has led America down a path that few could have imagined fifty years ago, until now we have come to a time in our history when the unthinkable is routine, and the unquestionable has been questioned and even discarded. Whether out of frustration, ignorance or political ambition, a generation of leaders have sacrificed the moral high ground in favor of a moralistic oppression so foreign to the ideals of human rights as to shock the conscience. A brief look at but a few of the articles of the Declaration of Human Rights points to a system out of control, and a nation in a race toward the bottom in its treatment of its citizens.

Article 10 of the United Nations Declaration states that "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him." Yet every day in America, citizens are convicted and sentenced to long prison terms on the word of informants who are being paid, often in the currency of their own freedom, for their testimony. And while it would be illegal for an accused to offer anything of value in return for testimony on his or her behalf, they are routinely sent away, their lives destroyed, by people whose futures depend upon telling the court exactly what the state wants to hear.

Article 12 states, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." Yet every day in America, the doors of citizens are kicked in on the word of confidential informants, police tap phones, sift through garbage, scan houses with infra-red sensors, stop and search travelers who fit vague "profiles", force people to urinate on demand for chemical tests and watch unsuspecting citizens with surveillance cameras. Privacy and the integrity of one's home and person have become a casualty of the unrelenting search for contraband, which can be anywhere and everywhere.

Article 16.3 states, "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state." Yet every day in America parents are taken from their children for terms of years or decades for non-violent offenses in which no one, save arguably the parents themselves have been harmed. Children are also taken from parents and incarcerated, for non-violent offenses, often to be housed with adult prisoners.

Article 17.2 states, "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property." Yet every day in America, government agents seize the property of individuals on the merest suspicion. That property is then presumed to belong to the state, whether or not criminal charges are filed. Proof is then required not of the government, but of the rightful owner, whether or not that individual can afford representation.

Article 18 states, "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion: This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." Yet across America, practitioners of Rastafari, Coptic Christians, Sufi Moslems and others have been denied the right to their traditional sacraments. They have been told that their religion, and its commandments, do not meet the criteria of the state and are therefore illegitimate. Members of these groups are harassed, surveilled and jailed. When they are released, the terms of their parole or probation often forbid them to worship in their chosen manner and even to associate with others of their faith.

Last week marked fifty years since the world came together in the aftermath of one of the greatest atrocities in the history of humankind. Humbled by the sheer powerlessness of the individual in the face of a state out of control, these representatives of the peoples of the globe set out the basic, minimal standards of freedom, equality, and the dignity of man. Fifty years ago the United States stood as the paragon of the virtues that they enumerated. Today, in the name of a war perpetrated upon her own citizens, that same United States makes a mockery of those ideals. It is stunning, really, that we have fallen so far, so fast. We as a nation are not, by virtue of our place in history, immune from tyranny. Nor, apparently, are we cognizant of its warning signs.

If you like what you see here and want to get these bulletins by e-mail, please fill out our quick signup form at https://stopthedrugwar.org/WOLSignup.shtml.

PERMISSION to reprint or redistribute any or all of the contents of Drug War Chronicle is hereby granted. We ask that any use of these materials include proper credit and, where appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If your publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet requests checks payable to the organization. If your publication does not pay for materials, you are free to use the materials gratis. In all cases, we request notification for our records, including physical copies where material has appeared in print. Contact: StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network, P.O. Box 18402, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293-8340 (voice), (202) 293-8344 (fax), e-mail [email protected]. Thank you.

Articles of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of the DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.

Out from the Shadows HEA Drug Provision Drug War Chronicle Perry Fund DRCNet en Español Speakeasy Blogs About Us Home Why Legalization? NJ Racial Profiling Archive Subscribe Donate DRCNet em Português Latest News Drug Library Search special friends links: SSDP - Flex Your Rights - IAL - Drug War Facts StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet) 1623 Connecticut Ave., NW, 3rd Floor, Washington DC 20009 Phone (202) 293-8340 Fax (202) 293-8344 [email protected]