ASSET PROTECTION

Balancing Law Enforcement And Individual Rights

Balancing the legitimate interests of law enforcement with the rights of
property owners is as difficult as it is important. In 1984, Congress
inadvertently tipped the scales out of kilter when, in its zeal to crack
down on drugs, it expanded the government's power to seize assets believed
to be linked to criminal activity, especially drug trafficking.

Last week, Congress wisely moved to restore the balance. The House approved
and sent to the White House a measure strengthening safeguards for property
owners against police seizures. President Clinton has indicated he'll sign
the legislation into law.

The bill's key reform would shift the burden to the government to prove
property was used in or gotten as a result of a crime. Currently, the legal
oddity exists that the seized property actually is on trial. Property can't
defend itself obviously. So the heavy bruden falls to the owner, whether or
not he or she has been charged with a crime, to show the property wasn't
linked to criminal activity.

Another significant safeguard requires police agencies to pay for any
damage to confiscated property. Yet another eliminates a requirement that a
property owner post 10 percent of the asset's value in cash to challenge a
seizure.

These reforms will doubtless curb authorities' abuses of asset-forfeiture
procedures. Some police agencies, because they can use the cars, boats and
other property they seize or finance their operations with proceeds from
the sale of seized property, have proved all too eager to go after private
property without sufficiently weighing the strength of their cases.

The reform measure, in a concession to common sense, makes it easier for
law enforcement to seize property clearly linked to crime once there has
been a criminal conviction.

Reasonably speaking, what ordinary citizen wants criminals allowed to
shelter ill-gotten gains? Neither will honest people tolerate abuse of
innocent property owners. The bill approved last week - backed by such
diverse interests as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National
Rifle Association - would go a long way toward returning balance to the
competing interests of law enforcement and individual rights.