Pubdate: Wed, 12 Apr 2000
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Section: Front Page
Copyright: 2000 The Washington Post Company
Contact:  1150 15th Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20071
Feedback: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Author: Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writer

HOUSE CLEARS BILL TO CURB SEIZURE OF PROPERTY BY FEDERAL AGENTS

Legislation making it harder for the federal government to seize property 
from suspected criminals cleared Congress yesterday, as lawmakers moved to 
curb a popular law enforcement tool that they say too often violates the 
rights of innocent people.

The measure, adopted on a voice vote in the House, would raise the standard 
the government must meet when it tries to take property from private 
citizens suspected of drug dealing or other crimes. The Senate has already 
approved identical legislation, and the White House has signaled that 
President Clinton will sign the bill.

Many lawmakers agreed that civil forfeiture has proved to be a valuable 
tool in helping crack down on drug traffickers who use ill-gotten gains to 
buy boats, houses and even whole businesses. In 1998, for instance, the 
Justice Department seized $449 million of assets linked to alleged criminal 
activity.

But an odd coalition of civil libertarians, business executives and 
conservatives successfully argued that too many innocent people have been 
victimized in the zeal to crack down on illegal drug dealing. They cited a 
trail of horror stories, such as the Houston hotel that was confiscated by 
federal agents after the local U.S. attorney accused the owners of tacitly 
approving drug activity.

Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee and one of 
the architects of the bill, hailed yesterday's House vote and recalled that 
when he first learned about the nation's civil forfeiture practices, he 
considered them "more appropriate for the Soviet Union than the United States."

"Who would have believed that under our current law the government could 
confiscate a person's private property on a mere showing of probable 
cause?" said Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), the top Judiciary Democrat, who 
has jousted with Hyde on many other issues.

Under current law, federal agents can take suspects' assets without an 
arrest and often keep them even after a suspect is acquitted or cleared of 
any charges; the burden of proof is on the property owner to show why he or 
she should regain the seized assets.

Law enforcement officials have voiced concern about the congressional 
campaign to curb those powers, fearing it could undermine their effort to 
go after drug dealers. But with momentum building in Congress to reform the 
system, Attorney General Janet Reno sat down recently to negotiate a 
compromise with a bipartisan group of lawmakers.

Hyde had originally proposed requiring prosecutors to provide "clear and 
convincing evidence" that the property they seize is linked to criminal 
activity. He also proposed providing indigent defendants with free legal 
counsel.

Under the compromise with Reno, prosecutors would have to show that a 
"preponderance of the evidence" links seized assets to criminal activity. 
Defendants would receive free representation in seizure cases only if they 
already have a government lawyer in a related criminal case or had real 
property--such as a business or house--seized by the government.

The final measure provides other protections to suspects, such as allowing 
a court to release assets during a case if a forfeiture were causing a 
property owner substantial hardship. The government must pay property 
owners' legal fees if they successfully challenge the seizure of their assets.

The list of civil forfeiture horror stories is lengthy. It took Haleyville, 
Ala., doctor Richard Lowe nearly six years and numerous appeals to get back 
his life savings of more than $2.5 million after federal agents seized his 
account. Lowe, whose family lost money during the Depression, kept nearly 
$317,000 in shoe boxes in his house before depositing it in a Roanoke bank. 
The bank's president placed the cash in a vault, exchanging it periodically 
for cashier's checks, which he deposited in Lowe's account.

After other bank officials reported this pattern to the FBI, federal agents 
confiscated the doctor's entire account on suspicions that he was 
laundering illegal drug money. Though the bank president told the FBI Lowe 
knew nothing about his activities and the government dropped its case 
against Lowe a week before his trial, it did not relinquish the money until 
the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered it to do so in 1996. During 
the legal fight, Lowe was hospitalized for stress and high blood pressure.

Lowe's lawyer, E.E. "Bo" Edwards, said the broad discretion that forfeiture 
law provides to prosecutors "encourages them to become greedy, to become 
overreaching, and innocent people are injured. That's exactly what happened 
here."

Not a single lawmaker spoke out against the bill yesterday, and members 
from both sides praised Hyde for his seven-year crusade to overhaul the 
law. The once-embattled chairman emphasized that the bitter fight in 1998 
over impeachment had not undermined his panel's lawmaking ability, and he 
read a lengthy thank-you list that sounded more like an Oscar acceptance 
speech than typical floor remarks.

"The Judiciary Committee in this House of Representatives can work together 
in a bipartisan fashion to turn out good legislation," Hyde said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D