June 1, 2001
Government Solutions Usually Prove Costly to Decent Citizens

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

There’s the old joke about the three great promises, one of which is always, “We’re from the government and we’re here to help you.”

The government’s help, however, usually proves to be just the opposite when average citizens run up against the helpful solutions created by lawmakers and bureaucrats.

One example in this column involves government agencies trying to protect children from guns. The other government solution that often proves costly to the law-abiding involves asset forfeiture laws that have been enacted by the states and federal government.

Originally intended to deprive drug criminals and other bad guys the use of ill-gotten gains, even for their legal defense against criminal charges, asset forfeiture laws have cost innocent people legal property and even their lives.

We’ve tracked the asset forfeiture issue in Gun Week over time because, while it does not seem like a gun rights issue, it often proves to be. There have been gun dealers, first charged with an offense and later exonerated, who have suffered the permanent loss of guns and property because of such laws.

Part of the problem is that the whole idea was sold to people alarmed by growing crime as a way of getting at criminals. To many conservatives, that often sounds like a good approach.

Bi-Partisan Effort
But I and other Second Amendment Foundation people have joined with other pro-gun groups, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and other groups to the right and left of the political center, for reform of the asset forfeiture laws.

Indeed, such reform has bi-partisan support in Congress, which is evident when you see that Republican lawmakers like Reps. Henry Hyde (IL) and Bob Barr (GA) join Democrats like John Conyers (MI) and Barney Frank (MA) to propose reform legislation.

The issue surfaces from time to time, and a recent story in Chicago’s Daily Herald brought it to mind.

According to the Daily Herald, Robert Doyle knew his 23-year-old daughter, Dina, had been running with the wrong crowd and that she had been arrested for drug possession.

But the Glendale Heights, IL, man says he didn’t fully understand the depth of his daughter’s troubles.

That is, not until last August when police confiscated the 1998 Chevrolet Corvette he had purchased only 14 months earlier, arguing it was linked to drug crimes.

A year later, Doyle is still fighting to get the car back.

“I never thought something like this could happen in this country,” said the 63-year-old Korean War veteran. “I feel like my rights have been violated. It’s heartbreaking.”

At issue is Illinois’ controversial civil forfeiture law, which allows police to seize your property, including cars, cash and houses, that they suspect of being used in a crime.

Rarely has an issue made such strange bedfellows, according to the Daily Herald, which noted that those challenging the law range from the ACLU to the National Rifle Association.

They argue that people such as Doyle have been forced to endure unnecessary, messy legal battles in efforts to get their property back.

Whose Wrongdoing?
Doyle is not accused of any wrongdoing, but authorities contend his daughter is partial owner of the Corvette and that she was implicated in three drug-related arrests. And all three times the Corvette was involved.

Police took the car on Aug. 28, 2000 from Doyle’s driveway after, they maintain, one of Dina Doyle’s friends attempted to hide a tiny tinfoil package of heroin inside.

Dina Doyle also was arrested in 1999, for having heroin in her purse while riding as a passenger in the Corvette.

A few months later, she was again stopped by police who, upon investigation, said they found a rolled-up dollar bill in her purse that had white powdery residue that tested positive for heroin.

She pleaded guilty to both drug-related charges and was sentenced to 16 months in the Dwight Correctional Center after failing to complete substance abuse counseling and also testing positive for cocaine on July 26, 2000.

Dina had not been living at home during the arrests. Her parents weren’t aware of all her arrests. Had they known, Dina Doyle’s use of the car would have been restricted, her brother, Leon Wallace, says.

DuPage Circuit Judge Bonnie Wheaton ruled on March 9 that Dina was partial owner of the Corvette and that she knowingly allowed drugs to be kept in it. Wheaton ordered the Corvette, worth an estimated $39,000, to be forfeited to law enforcement.

Robert Doyle went back to court in early May to ask Wheaton to reconsider her ruling. He contends the Corvette is a family car, one of several he owns and allows his children to drive. Dina Doyle’s name is not on the title.

“Bob Doyle is the owner of the car,” said Michelle Moore, an Oak Brook, IL, attorney whom Doyle hired to handle the appeal. “She (his daughter) was involved in the purchase of the car, but she is not the owner. There is nothing in the law to support their (the police) argument.”

ACLU spokesman Ed Yohnka told the Daily Herald that the Doyle case is not unique.

“It (the forfeiture law) really has ended up hurting moms, dads and grandparents because, the fact is, the people who get caught up in these laws are usually regular citizens like you and me,” he argues. “They’re not drug kingpins.”

Foster-Care Gun Ban
Another case involving hurtful government help comes from the May 9 Salt Lake Tribune.

The newspaper reported that Ryan and Mary King, who want to become foster parents and one day hope to adopt, were rejected because King refused to give up his guns while having a foster child in his home. That decision disqualifies him for consideration as a foster parent, ruled an administrative officer for Utah’s Department of Human Services.

King, who has a state-issued CCW, was notified in January that because he would not relinquish his concealed gun at home he could not become a foster parent. In March, the hearing officer affirmed the ruling.

“Some day we hope to adopt through the state,” King told The Salt Lake Tribune. “If this hadn’t happened we could have had a child by the end of last year, through Christmas, which would have been nice for us and could have been wonderful for some child. All that was thwarted.”

In mid-May, members of the state legislature’s Administrative Rules Committee scolded officials at Human Services, some saying the agency had broadly interpreted a requirement that foster homes be safe and that guns be inaccessible to children.

Administrative hearing officer Mary Rudolph wrote in her January decision that King “argues he has a constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon and be a foster parent.”

“To be licensed to be a foster parent is a privilege,” she wrote.

The legislative committee members questioned Rudolph’s judgment. Rudolph is “way out of line,” said House Minority Whip David Ure (R-Kamas).

In early May, King appealed the denial in 3rd District Court. The next day, he asked lawmakers at a hearing to exert pressure on Human Services to reconsider its decision and the rule on which his denial was based. At a hearing, King suggested he might be willing to lock up his guns at home but could not abide a request never to carry his concealed weapon in the presence of foster children. His offer is a compromise the agency could consider, said Kate Lahey, legal counsel for Human Services.

Human Services will revisit the rule, Lahey promised. Meanwhile, King’s court appeal awaits an initial scheduling conference. Utah’s gun rights network will be watching. So will others who are concerned about one-size-fits-all government rules.