Pubdate: Fri, 25 Aug 2000
Source: WorldNetDaily (US Web)
Copyright: 2000, WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.
Contact:  PO Box 409, Cave Junction, OR 97523-0409
Fax: (541) 597-1700
Website: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
Author: Patrick Poole

ASSET FORFEITURE REFORM TAKES EFFECT

Aims To Reduce Law-enforcement Abuses, Official ''Money Laundering'

A new law taking effect this week, which changes the way federal agencies 
can seize personal property, is being hailed as a major step forward in 
addressing widely condemned abuses of the forfeiture process by 
law-enforcement authorities.

The passage of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 was the 
culmination of a seven-year crusade by Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., the 
powerful chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who waged a war of 
attrition with the Department of Justice and local law-enforcement 
authorities to get the statute enacted.

To accomplish this feat, Hyde had to cobble together an unusual coalition 
of liberal and conservative sponsors, including the main players on both 
sides of the Judiciary Committee's impeachment brawl last year: Hyde, 
ranking Democrat Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, fiery conservative Rep. Bob 
Barr, R-Ga., and outspoken liberal Democrat Rep. Barney Frank of 
Massachusetts. The bill, H.R. 1658, passed through the sharply divided 
Judiciary Committee 27-3 and sailed through the House in July 1999 by a 
wide margin of 375-48.

On the Senate side, the bill was then carried by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, 
and Vermont Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy, where it passed in March under a 
unanimous-consent motion. The bill was signed into law by President Clinton 
on April 25 and went into effect Wednesday.

The bill also drew support from all quarters of the political spectrum, 
including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle 
Association, the American Bar Association, Americans for Tax Reform and the 
Marijuana Policy Project.

William Moffitt, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense 
Lawyers, said the forfeiture reforms were long overdue.

"Americans have suffered too long as a result of unfair forfeiture of their 
homes, autos and other personal belongings near and dear to them," Moffitt 
said.

Meanwhile, law enforcement officials are predicting gloom and doom over the 
new law's impact.

"This is a horrible bill," said Gene Voegtlin, legislative counsel for the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police, in an interview with the 
Washington Post shortly after the bill was passed. "We know there have been 
high-profile cases of abuse, but these laws aren't about taking property 
from innocent grandmothers."

It appears the new law will affect government coffers. An analysis of the 
bill's financial effect by the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 
governmental receipts deposited into the Assets Forfeiture Fund and the 
Treasury Forfeiture Fund would decrease by about $115 million each year, 
beginning in fiscal year 2001. That is a sizable chunk of the forfeiture 
funds obtained by the federal government each year -- revenue that amounted 
to $449 million in 1998, well up from the $27 million garnered in 1985.

The new procedures controlling asset forfeiture created under the reform 
package include:

Requiring warrants, or requiring that the government proceed by recognized 
exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, to obtain 
property for forfeiture. Eliminating the cost bond requirement, whereby 
claimants had to post bond in an amount of the lesser of $5,000 or 10 
percent of the value of the seized property (but not less than $250) to 
preserve the right to contest a forfeiture.

Shifting the burden of proof in asset forfeitures squarely to the 
government by requiring the government to show complicity by a 
"preponderance of the evidence."

Providing a uniform definition of the "forfeitable proceeds" of criminal acts.

Expanding the time during which a person whose assets have been seized may 
file a claim.

Requiring seizing agencies to comply with strict notice and time requirements.

Allowing for release of seized property in certain hardship cases.

Allowing the appointment of counsel for indigent claimants.

Requiring payments of reasonable attorney fees in cases where the claimants 
prevail.

Allowing an action for damages against the government for harm to seized 
property while under government control.

In order to get the bill through all of the legislative hurdles, Hyde had 
to change strategy by refusing to deal with Justice Department lobbyists, 
who had been successful in sabotaging and gutting similar bills on previous 
occasions. However, while some observers are applauding the efforts of 
Congress to finally address the problem of forfeiture abuse, many are 
concerned that the new law doesn't go far enough to stem the abuses by both 
local and federal law-enforcement authorities.

"I think it's a good first start, but these are very modest changes 
compared to what we really need," said Rachel King, legislative counsel for 
the ACLU's Washington, D.C., office. She did clarify that while the ACLU 
supported the Hyde bill, the organization's stated position is for the 
complete abolition of civil asset forfeiture, and that criminal forfeitures 
ought to be conducted with the fullest amount of due process possible.

King noted that while the burden of proof for civil forfeiture proceedings 
is for the first time shifted to law enforcement, the "preponderance of the 
evidence" standard is much weaker than the "clear and convincing evidence" 
standard that was part of the original language of the bill. That change 
was enacted as a Justice Department amendment forwarded by Reps. Asa 
Hutchinson, R-Ark., and Ed Bryant, R-Tenn., both former U.S. attorneys.

What concerns civil liberties advocates most -- and was never addressed in 
the Hyde bill -- is the practice of adoptive forfeiture, where local and 
state law-enforcement agencies use the federal government to seize property 
to circumvent state laws that dedicated forfeiture revenues to certain 
areas of the state budget, such as education. After federal authorities 
seize the property, the funds are divided with a portion of the money kept 
by the federal agency, and up to 80 percent of the proceeds given directly 
to the local departments without regard to the mandated provisions for 
dividing forfeiture revenues found in state law. A yearlong series of 
reports published by the Kansas City Star has documented the practice 
occurring in states throughout the country.

"As long as this provision and opportunity exists for local police 
departments, there is going to be strong incentive for police to use 
forfeiture to increase their budgets," King said. "Stopping adoptive 
forfeiture would drastically change the process and put teeth into the 
existing state laws, which are generally stronger than federal law."

Congressional officials told WorldNetDaily compromise on the burden of 
proof and adoptive forfeiture provisions was necessary to get the bill 
through Congress and to prevent a presidential veto.

"There was no other way to get it done on a consensus basis," said Julie 
Katzman, a senior aide to Leahy. "The fact that we got anything done is 
extraordinary. We knew it was going to be a tough task, because this cuts 
heavily into the revenues of many law-enforcement departments."

Katzman acknowledged that adoptive forfeiture was a significant problem and 
said one way states could remove the incentive to use forfeiture to bolster 
law-enforcement budgets would be for legislatures to reduce local 
departments' state funding dollar for dollar for their forfeiture receipts.

"We shouldn't be facilitating local and state agencies laundering money 
through the federal government," she told WorldNetDaily. "It's a problem 
that we created, but there is no question that the states could enforce 
their own laws to stop this practice."

Katzman said legislation addressing these additional issues would not be 
forthcoming this legislative session, and that the question of which party 
will control the houses of Congress would factor into future legislation on 
the matter.

Another consideration will be that Hyde, the congressional champion of 
forfeiture reform, will no longer be chairman of the House Judiciary 
Committee after this year due to House Republican rules that limit the 
tenure of committee chairman.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D