Pubdate: Wed, 23 June 1999 Source: Orange County Register (CA) Copyright: 1999 The Orange County Register Contact: http://www.ocregister.com/ SANITY ON ASSET SEIZURES The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote today or tomorrow on H.R. 1658, a bill that would reform civil asset forfeiture at the federal level. Written by Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois and passed out of the Judiciary Committee with a bipartisan 27-3 vote, the bill has attracted support from legislators as diverse as Georgia Republican Bob Barr and Michigan Democrat John Conyers. It still faces opposition from law enforcement lobbies, who have written a substitute bill that includes a few reforms but, on balance, expands forfeiture powers. The overuse of civil asset forfeiture in recent years has been well documented. Under current law, the police can take peoples' cars, homes, other possessions and bank accounts on the basis of a tip from a paid informant and not even have to charge the person whose property is taken with a crime. In a reversal of the usual burden of proof, a person must prove the property is not "guilty" of being used for or the fruits of a crime. The government doesn't have to prove even that a crime was committed. H.R. 1658 would force the government to prove property is related to a crime and create an "innocent owner defense" whereby property owners who are either unaware of or unsuccessfully try to stop criminal activity on their property -- e.g., a landlord who unwittingly rented to a drug dealer - -- could recover the property. It would eliminate the cost-bond requirement, which now requires property owners to pay $5,000 or 10 percent of the seized property's value to contest a seizure in court, extend the time for filing a claim to contest a seizure and provide compensation for property damage caused by federal agents. These reforms are modest and overdue; indeed, a requirement that no property shall be seized unless and until a person has been convicted of a crime would have been welcome. But many police agencies, as former San Jose police chief Joseph McNamara wrote in these pages a few weeks ago, have become all too dependent on seizures for day-to-day budget items. While many individual policemen share our concerns about abuse of asset forfeiture laws, most police lobbying groups fear reforms that would reduce the number of seizures. In the long run, however, over-reliance on seizures undermines the confidence citizens have in police agencies, even as it undermines the concept of private property rights. Reform is essential. All of Orange County's members of Congress should vote for H.R. 1658 and resist efforts to water it down. Citizens interested in expressing an opinion to legislators directly can go to www.drcnet.org/forfeiture and sign a form letter that will be e-mailed or faxed to one's congressional representative. The Drug Policy Foundation has extensive background on forfeiture laws at www.dpf.org/html/forfeiture.html. Critics of lenient asset forfeiture laws have been complaining for years and are finally being heard. By passing H.R. 1658 the House can begin to reverse a trend that has too often made the War on Drugs a war on individual rights. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake