Winning by forfeit.

• Author: Gillespie, Nick

Recent court decisions limit state seizures.

THE NAME RENATO TORRES WON'T ever become a synonym for good luck: Torres and an associate were the objects of a federal sting operation that led government agents to seize $60,000 in cash with which Tortes had tried to purchase three kilograms of cocaine. In the subsequent criminal prosecution, Torres entered a guilty plea and received a sentence of 73 months in jail.

But Torres's name may ultimately be closely linked to what one judicial activist calls an incipient "revolution" in forfeiture law. That's because Torres appealed his conviction on the grounds that following the $60,000 forfeiture, any further punishment violated constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy--being tried or punished twice for the same crime.

Torres's lawyers based their arguments on two recent Supreme Court rulings. The first, 1993's Austin v. U.S., established that civil forfeitures can be considered "punishment" subject to the Eighth Amendment's "excessive fines" clause. The second, 1994's Montana v. Kurth, declared that the imposition of a tax on confiscated drugs constitutes double jeopardy if the person possessing the drugs has already been sentenced in a criminal proceeding.

Although Torres's appeal was denied--he had never filed a claim to the confiscated money--the 7th Circuit Appeals Court accepted as valid the legal reasoning behind the motion. And that may amount to a major reversal in the next few years on all forfeiture issues, says Brenda...