———

GAMBLING PROBLEM

The gambling business is built on bettors’ willful suspension of belief in the laws of probability. If state officials approve another Philadelphia casino, they will be showing a similar capacity to ignore the inevitable.

The state gambling board is scheduled to meet next week “for the purpose of considering an award” of a second city casino license .... But the fortunes of the region’s existing casinos have turned so sour that even the politicians who aided and abetted state-sanctioned gambling are urging otherwise.

Former Gov. Ed Rendell, who signed Pennsylvania’s gambling law and has asserted that only “simpletons” and “idiots” could fail to appreciate its wisdom, told The Inquirer last week that he wasn’t sure Philadelphia needs another casino. He said the gambling board should slow down and seek input from Gov.-elect Tom Wolf. With SugarHouse taking bets on the Delaware waterfront and three other casinos near the city’s borders, several suburban legislators expressed similar reservations.

The most glaring evidence of a casino collapse is in nearby Atlantic City, which has lost a third of its casinos in less than a year. This week, on the eve of a “summit” on Atlantic City’s future convened by Gov. Christie, State Senate President Steve Sweeney proposed several measures to stabilize the city’s finances. But Sweeney and Christie are also threatening to compound the gambling glut by allowing a casino in northern New Jersey.

Pennsylvania now hosts as many casinos as pre-crisis Atlantic City, and its gambling revenues seem to have peaked. The overall slot machine take has been falling since 2012.

Just as Pennsylvania poached New Jersey gamblers, Ohio, Maryland, and other nearby states are competing for Keystone State wagerers. In fact, one of the would-be owners of Philadelphia’s next convenience casino has one in Baltimore and hopes to open another in New York.

Especially as gambling migrates inexorably online, this losing game can only generate more failed casinos, followed by more wrongheaded government bailouts. New Jersey officials are already talking about propping up Atlantic City gambling with more state breaks and guarantees.

Pennsylvania’s gambling board has hesitated to add a casino for years, and its chairman, Gregory Fajt, has acknowledged the signs of market saturation. He and the other members must understand that this is not the time to saddle Philadelphia with another casino. As the gaming governor himself might put it, they would have to be simpletons not to.

— The Philadelphia Inquirer

———

CIVIL FORFEITURES NEED MORE OVERSIGHT

State law allows county officials to seize money or property believed to be connected to crime. The practice is called civil forfeiture and here, as across the country, it’s on the rise. The Lancaster County District Attorney’s Office has generated millions in forfeiture proceeds in recent years and has a $1.75 million surplus. The proceeds help to fund the Lancaster County Drug Task Force, which the DA says still is underfunded.

In theory, the idea of seizing cash and other assets from drug dealers and then using the proceeds to fight the drug scourge seems like a perfect kind of justice.

But as critics across the country are pointing out, the practice of civil forfeiture is ripe for abuse.

And even two former Justice Department officials who helped create the asset forfeiture initiative in the 1980s have expressed alarm at the way it’s being used.

Writing in The Washington Post, John Yoder and Brad Cates maintained that civil forfeiture has become a fundraising activity for some law enforcement agencies, rather than “an even-handed effort to enforce the law.”

Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman acknowledged the potential for abuse in an interview with LNP.

“If it’s being abused as a means of generating revenue, then you have a problem,” Stedman said.

He said that Lancaster County — unlike many other counties — waits until a person is convicted and a direct appeal is denied before it files forfeiture petitions to allow the county to keep the assets.

The reality is, though, that property once seized seldom goes back to its owner.

In many cases that’s appropriate; the money or assets are connected to the sale of drugs. Where that’s not the case, there is a process to file for the return of your property. If your request is denied, you’ll likely need to hire an attorney.

If you’ve lost hundreds of dollars, and you don’t have much to begin with, are you likely to chance losing hundreds more by hiring an attorney?

Most people don’t even try to get their assets back; some feel powerless to fight for their return.

Consider the case of Theresa Campbell, whose son pleaded guilty to possession of drugs with intent to distribute.

In the course of raiding the family home, police took $300 from Campbell’s purse.

Police said Campbell helped her son to hide drugs during the raid but she wasn’t charged with any crime.

She never got her money back.

Consider, too, Barbara and Ralph Spring, who are raising their grandsons after their daughter Jessica died of a drug overdose.

They would have liked to have had their daughter’s Jeep Cherokee to transport their grandkids. Or they might have sold it and put the proceeds toward their grandkids’ college savings.

But a drug dealer they don’t even know ended up with the vehicle. After he was arrested, he surrendered the Jeep to the police.

It was later sold by Lancaster County.

The District Attorney’s Office published a brief legal notice stating that anyone with a legal claim to the vehicle should come forward.

But the Springs didn’t see the notice. County officials might have tried calling them — they’ve had the same phone number for 20 years, they told LNP — but the brief legal notice was the only notice that’s required.

Sometimes, it seems, legal and right are not the same.

Stedman defends civil forfeiture as an effective way of stripping assets from drug dealers, and of funding enforcement.

Critics, however, call the practice “policing for profit.”

It turns on its head a basic tenet of American justice: Law enforcement doesn’t have to prove that cash and other property are connected to crime.

The property’s owner has to prove that it is not.

In other words, the property is guilty until proven innocent.

Civil forfeiture feeds the perception that the rights of ordinary citizens are trumped by law enforcement.

And that perception leads to cynicism and distrust of our legal system.

There’s a way to counter that perception: Appoint an independent ombudsman to review civil forfeitures, and streamline the appeal procedures.

No one is going to cry for the convicted drug dealer whose assets were seized and then used for the excellent purpose of investigating and charging other drug dealers.

Seizing the property of those who are convicted — or at least charged — seems entirely appropriate.

But those who live with criminals, or care for them, shouldn’t be viewed as guilty by association.

And neither should their assets.

— LNP

———

———