SENATE AGREES ON BILL LIMITING SEIZURES OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Legislation restricting the
federal government's authority to seize private property suspected of
being linked to crime was approved Thursday by the Senate Judiciary
Committee.

The legislation seeks to restore balance to a crime-fighting tool that
has allowed the government to confiscate the cars, boats and houses of
drug dealers. But it has led to cases of abuse when prosecutors seize
the property of people who are innocent or didn't know the property
was being used in an illegal act.

The voice vote by the committee came after House and Senate sponsors
from both parties met Wednesday with Attorney General Janet Reno to
work out the final differences.

The bill, said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., top Democrat on the
committee, ``should go a long way toward stemming the abuses that have
so offended Americans across the country'' and across the political
spectrum.

Committee Chairman Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said the bill should
reach the Senate floor in the near future for what is expected to be
quick passage.

The main objective of the legislation is to shift the burden of proof
in asset forfeiture cases from the property owner, where it now lies,
to the government.

Under the compromise, the government must make its case ``by a
preponderance of the evidence.''

The House version of the bill, which passed last June by a 375-48
vote, stated that the government must have a ``clear and convincing
evidence,'' but House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill.,
who has pushed for asset forfeiture legislation for seven years,
agreed to go along with the somewhat less demanding Senate language.

The administration and some senators had objected to the House
version, saying it would make it too hard for federal prosecutors to
prove their cases.

The bill also enables a judge to release property to the owner if
continued government possession poses a substantial hardship, extends
the time a property owner has to challenge a seizure in court and ends
the requirement that a person seeking to recover property post a bond
with the court.

Hyde has argued that current asset forfeiture procedures, which are
largely based on 19th century admiralty law, are a throwback to the
old Soviet Union where the government can grab property merely by
making charges and without ever convicting a person of a crime.

Leahy gave one example from his home state of Vermont where federal
marshals seized the family home and 49 surrounding acres of a man who,
without his wife's knowledge, had pleaded guilty to growing six
marijuana plants. He said that after people in the state protested the
man got his property back.

The bill is supported by a broad range of groups, including the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the American Civil Liberties Union, the NRA, and
the American Bar Association.

The bill number is H.R. 1658.