PROPERTY SEIZURE LAWS CHANGED TO INCREASE THE BURDEN OF PROOF

Jim Spurlock is an unlikely activist. The prosperous airplane broker
is a private pilot and a lifelong Republican. Since 1976, he has spent
much of his time in an office at Fort Worth Meacham Airport putting
airplane buyers in touch with owners, sometimes spending months
arranging a single purchase.

But in 1991 and 1992, the U.S. Customs Service seized two of his
customers' jets because of a paperwork error. Spurlock said he spent
nine months and thousands of dollars getting them returned. He said he
learned that basic legal principles, such as presumption of innocence,
could be upended by federal asset forfeiture laws.

"The rule of law is disappearing. Something needs to be done to change
it back," said Spurlock, 57, of Fort Worth.

Eight years later, Congress has acted on his concerns and those of
hundreds more people who contend that they are innocent victims of the
forfeiture laws.

President Clinton has promised to sign the overhaul bill, but a date
to do so has not been set. A Clinton spokeswoman said the bill will
protect the rights of the accused while helping law enforcement fight
drug trafficking and white-collar crime.

Will Ferrell, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union
of Texas, calls the bill a "moral victory" following the "hysteria of
the war on drugs."

"Here is an example of how when elected officials really sit down and
think about the ramifications of their actions they will come into
standing with the Constitution," he said.

The federal government began confiscating money from drug dealers in
the 1970s, and the practice took off in the 1980s when President
Reagan declared a war on drugs.

In the Northern District of Texas, which covers Tarrant, Dallas and
several other counties, it happens about 130 times a year, officials
said.

As Spurlock learned, money is not the only asset seized. Officials can
take anything of value, including houses, vehicles and jewelry.

The biggest change in the law is in burden of proof. According to the
original law, prosecutors only had to show probable cause that
property was involved in a crime or bought with ill-gotten money, and
owners had to prove that they were innocent to get back their
property. That is the same level of proof needed to get a search warrant.

The new law will require more. It calls for the same amount of proof
needed to win most civil cases.

The law also will allow some defendants to have court- appointed
lawyers, and it holds federal agents responsible for damage to seized
property. Also, defendants no longer have to put up a bond before they
contest a seizure in court.

Brock Stevenson, who handles property seizures for the U.S. attorney's
office in Dallas, said the changes would have a negligible effect.

"It'll just put a higher burden on government," he said. "Most
prosecutors, when they take an asset forfeiture case, realize they
have to have more than just bare probable cause."

The Justice Department asset seizure fund increased from $27 million
in 1985 to a peak of $556 million in 1993, according to the House
Judiciary Committee. The fund had $449 million in cash and property as
of 1998, according to the committee.

Seized cash and property usually are liquidated, then returned to the
Justice Department or to the agencies that seized them. The agencies
have broad discretion about how to spend the money.

During the past two years, police agencies in Texas shared $22.6
million in cash forfeited through state court proceedings and about $3
million in liquidated properties, officials said.

Police departments in Arlington, Fort Worth and Northeast Tarrant
County have funneled that money into anti-drug operations and
community awareness programs such as Drug Awareness Resistance
Education, into purchases of guns and body armor, and to open and
furnish storefront offices.

In 10 years, the North Richland Hills Police Department has received
about $448,000 in federal forfeiture funds and about $155,000 from
state funds, Police Chief Tom Shockley said.

The money was used to purchase vehicles, computers and furniture and
also as "buy money" for drug stings, he said.

"I think it's helped our community," Shockley said.

"It's no secret that there have been abuses across the country with
some of the seizures," he said. "But the tact we take is, let's not
seize what we can seize but see if we can impact the drug problem."

Spurlock said he got involved after Customs Service agents seized a
$450,000 Learjet and a $550,000 Beechcraft he had sold to two
Brazilian businessmen.

Customs agents seized the jets because the businessmen mistakenly
indicated that they were owned by a U.S. corporation, Spurlock said.

When U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas looked into the case at Spurlock's
request, customs officials wrote that they suspected the businessmen
and the pilot of drug smuggling and money laundering.

Spurlock said he was floored.

"One of the sinister parts was they never arrested the people,
investigated them or charged them with the crime," he said. "All they
wanted was the property."

When the House Judiciary Committee had hearings on asset forfeiture,
people from across the country shared their stories.

The practice always has been unpopular with civil libertarians, who
say that returning the proceeds to the police gives them an incentive
to seize property.

Some, including the ACLU and U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Houston,
have contended that minorities are disproportionate targets of civil
forfeitures.

Jackson Lee testified that racial profiling by police has increased
the number of minorities involved in traffic stops, airport searches
and drug arrests, which often lead to property seizures.

The overhaul bill was tied up in a conference committee in December
when Customs Service agents evicted Keller resident Misty Burton from
a small farm she shared with her husband. Police and customs agents
contended that her husband had bought the farm using drug money. Her
husband was in prison and she did not find a lawyer early enough to
contest the seizure.

Burton's attorney, Brantley Pringle, made a last-ditch appeal. He
argued that the case violated the constitutional guarantee against
unreasonable seizure, and that Burton became part-owner of the farm
long after her husband was accused of being involved with illegal drugs.

The government won the case. "Their contention is the only way we can
make this evil property wholesome ... essentially is to take it
ourselves," Pringle said.

Spurlock said his experience with forfeiture laws continues to trouble
him.

His customers "only lost an airplane," he said. "I lost my
Constitution."