EDITORIAL : UNFAIR PUNISHMENT; SUPREME COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF TARZANA MAN.

IN a landmark case, the Supreme Court on Monday drove back the hounds of government by setting limits on the nation's ability to seize property as punishment.

The case of Hosep Krikor Bajakajian, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was a clear vindication for the little guy and a serious criticism of the government's abuse of power.

The Supreme Court ruled the seizure of $357,144 from the Tarzana man as punishment was ``grossly disproportional to the gravity of his offense.''

Bajakajian and his wife were traveling in June 1994 from Los Angeles to Syria when money-sniffing dogs found $357,144 in cash hidden in his luggage at Los Angeles International Airport.

He lied initially when asked how much money he was carrying, later saying he distrusted Syrian government officials. Bajakajian, who owns two gas stations in Hollywood, was on his way to repay relatives who helped him get started when he immigrated to the United States.

A federal law requires that anyone who moves more than $10,000 in cash out of the United States must report it to the Treasury Department.

Bajakajian pleaded guilty and was ordered to pay a $5,000 fine and a $15,000 forfeiture, in addition to serving three years of probation.

But the government wanted every last dollar. It seized the entire $357,144, and then appealed the case all the way to the Supreme Court.

There are three basic reasons for forfeiture: contraband, ill-gotten goods and facilitation. In the case of facilitation, if someone charters your plane and then uses it to transport drugs, unbeknown to you, the government can seize your plane since it was an instrument of the crime.

But in Bajakajian's case, a trial judge found that the money was not linked to illegal drugs or gambling, was not stolen and was not being laundered for tax evasion or any reason.

The Clinton administration appealed.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that forfeitures are considered fines, and therefore are protected by the Constitution's Eighth Amendment ban on excessive fines, if they are imposed as punishment for an offense.

Until Monday, the court had never outlined a standard for determining when a fine is excessive.

Particularly specious was the statement by U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman Thom Mrozek following the decision. Mrozek hinted darkly that it was never clearly determined what the source of the money was.

In fact, a judge determined the money had been earned legally through Bajakajian's gas station business.

In the war on drugs, the government has used every means to crush trade and money-laundering. But the Justice Department has taken it to the extreme, zealously crushing everyone in its path.

On Monday, the Supreme Court injected balance back into the process, finding that under the Constitution, the punishment must still fit the crime.