Pubdate: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 Source: Charlotte Observer (NC) Copyright: 1999 The Charlotte Observer Contact: http://www.charlotte.com/observer/ Author: David Hess, Observer Washington Bureau BILL AIMS TO CURTAIL SEIZURES Supporters Praise Forfeiture Law's Ability To Punish, Prevent Crime - -- In California a wealthy rancher was shot to death by federal agents who burst into his home on suspicion that he was cultivating marijuana. It turned out he strongly opposed illegal drugs. A local district attorney concluded after an investigation that the government was more interested in seizing his valuable property under civil forfeiture laws than in making a drug arrest. In Detroit, a former professional football player was detained by the Drug Enforcement Administration because, as a black man who had purchased a one-way ticket to El Paso, Texas, he fit the profile of a drug courier. The DEA confiscated $18,000 in cash the player was carrying -- again under the civil forfeiture law. It was later discovered the player was going to an auction to buy a classic car. These are but two examples in a long inventory of case studies assembled by critics of a 210-year-old statute that aims to deny wrongdoers the fruits of their criminal enterprises. Today, the House of Representatives is scheduled to take up a bill sponsored by some old congressional foes turned allies -- Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., a conservative, and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a liberal -- that would try to remedy what they see as a license to abuse the rights of innocent people. Justice Department spokesman Myron Marlin said Wednesday that "civil forfeiture is an incredibly effective tool" for authorities to deprive criminals of the assets they need to thrive. In the past decade, Marlin said, the federal government alone has averaged $500 million a year in seizures, mostly in cash, but also in property such as cars, boats and planes. Mark Calloway, chief federal prosecutor for the Western District of North Carolina, said civil forfeiture laws have helped his office punish criminals and have helped to stifle further criminal activity. In the year ending September 1998, Western District prosecutors seized $8.3 million in goods and cash. "They're a very effective tool in both taking the profit out of crime and in taking the assets used to help accomplish the crime," he said. "No one wants to allow . . . people who have violated the law to keep their ill-gotten gains." Calloway said he couldn't recall any instance during his 5-year tenure where a court ordered his office to return seized property. Critics, some of whom carry law-and-order credentials, contend that hundreds of innocent people have been victimized by overzealous law enforcers who are as eager to crush drug dealing as they are to fortify their budgets with the fruits of their property seizures. (The proceeds collected by the federal government, for instance, are divided 50-50 between federal law enforcement agencies, and state and local ones.) Congress began turning to forfeiture as a law enforcement tool in 1978, when crime and drugs were among the main worries of American voters. In the past several years, however, crime has been on the decline, and the public has turned to other issues. Federal officials say most of the flagrant abuses cited by critics occurred several years ago and that reforms by the Justice and Treasury departments have minimized the chances of future abuses. "The Hyde bill is trying to solve a problem that's already been solved," Marlin said. "Both the FBI and DEA now require, for instance, that all seizures be screened at headquarters here to make sure there's an actual basis for the seizure. Nowadays, 85 percent of the 30,000 seizures we make each year are not even contested. And of the remaining 15 percent that are, we only lose about 4 percent of the cases." But Rep. Frank insisted that the legislation is still needed to deter abuses that are almost bound to occur because of the financial interest law enforcers have in the proceeds of seizures. Hyde's bill would: Require the government to prove that the property seized was part of a criminal activity. Under the existing procedure, the property owner bears the burden of proving that the property was not used in a crime. Raise the government's standard of proof to one of "clear and convincing evidence" that the property was linked to the crime. Now the government need only show "probable cause" to seize suspect property. And the Justice Department is arguing that any new standard of proof should be by a "preponderance of evidence" -- a lower standard -- that the property warranted seizure. Staff writer Phuong Ly contributed to this article. - --- MAP posted-by: Derek Rea