Student Review:

     Finkelman finds that with the nation's increasing emphasis on the war on drugs, many aspects of the Bill of Rights have been harnessed.  More and more, exceptions are created in cases when suspects sell or use drugs.  Finkelman first demonstrates that any time there has been a �war�, the liberties granted by the Bill of Rights have been eroded.  Examples include the Civil War when habeas copus was suspended, the Japanese-American interment of World War II when due process was suspended, and the Red Scare of 1919 which limited freedom of speech.  Much in the same vein, declaring a war on drugs has deprived Americans protection under the Bill of Rights.  Finkelman demonstrates that the drug war has impaired the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments, and poses a danger to the average citizen.
      First, Finkelman finds that individuals who are found with small quantities of drugs often receive greater sentences than defendants convicted of murder or drunk-driving fatalities.  The drug war affected the Eighth Amendment with disproportionate sentences and unreasonable bail limits.
      Finkelman is extremely concerned about the influence of the war on drugs on the First Amendment.  In furtherance of the drug war, federal prosecutors have investigated High Times, a magazine that urges the legalization of marijuana.  The government has issued grand jury subpoenas to the magazines editors, raided stores and houses of those who advertise in High Times, and asked for a list of subscribers to the magazine.  Finkelman feels that much of this effort has been an attempt to eliminate the magazine's funds.  The harassment of High Times makes a mockery of the right to free speech.  Further violations of First Amendment rights include the case of Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith in which the Supreme Court held that Smith should not receive unemployment compensation as a result of being fired for using peyote as part of a Native American religious practice.  Although other members of minority religions have historically been exempt from mainstream laws, (i.e. Quakers exempt from military service, Jehovah's Witnesses exempt from saluting the flag, and Amish children exempt from education laws) the Court refused to continue this policy when in conflict with the war on drugs.
      Finkelman finds that the Fourth Amendment has also fallen victim to the war on drugs.  Searches based on profiles have become increasingly familiar in drug cases.  While the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Court has held that aerial searches (even into a greenhouse) and drug courier profile searches are valid instruments to fight the war on drugs.  These policies lead to harassment of innocent individuals, and eliminates the basic protection of the Fourth Amendment.  Finkelman urges that the Court embrace the standard of United States v. Sokolow and find that searches need to be premised on more than a hunch or suspicion. This policy would force police to have facts to suggest fear of bodily harm or facts demonstrating that the individual was armed and dangerous.
      Policies toward individuals accused of drug possession harm the Fifth and Sixth Amendment right to counsel.  The Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984 provides that the assets of an suspect can be seized before trial, and subject to forfeiture upon conviction.  Thus, defendants are unable to hire capable defense attorneys for their case.  The Fifth Amendment protection against taking of property without due process is also harmed when tenants at apartments owned by drug suspects are seized and the residents are forced to move immediately.  Likewise, wives and children are evicted from their homes when their estranged husbands are convicted.  Finkelman also mention that the Sixth Amendment guarantee to a speedy trial is being eroded with the influx of drug cases that overwhelm federal courts.  Often the right to a jury, guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment, is not honored.
      Thus, when the war on drugs begins to destroy the fundamental protection of the Bill of Rights, it is not only suspects that are in danger.  Average citizens also lose their basic freedoms.  The government and the courts should not allow the  war on drugs to erode America's fundamental liberties.

Article Summary by: Corrie Noir
Wake Forest University School of Law 1999