ASSET FORFEITURE BILL APPROVED

WASHINGTON (AP) -- It took four years for a Chicago pizza parlor to
retrieve $500,000 in cash improperly seized in a drug raid. It took
three years for a Vermont woman to win back 10 acres seized after
police discovered two marijuana patches secretly grown by her daughter.

These were the kind of incidents cited by lawmakers as the House
approved a bill Tuesday that would make it tougher to seize property
connected to criminal acts.

The bill, passed by a voice vote, had wide support, sponsored by both
Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary
committees and backed by such diverse groups as the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Senate has already passed the bill, and the president is expected
to sign it.

Civil asset forfeiture, dating back to 19th century admiralty laws,
has become an effective crime-fighting tools, particularly against
drug traffickers, with nearly $500 million in crime-related assets
seized last year. But the practice has also been criticized for being
subject to abuse by zealous law enforcement officials.

The main thrust of the bill, which House Judiciary Committee Chairman
Henry Hyde, R-Ill., has been promoting for seven years, is to shift
the burden of proof to the government. Currently, the property owner
must show that his property is ``innocent.''

The House Judiciary panel cited a 1993 case where police in a Seattle
suburb seized a Mexican restaurant as part of the arrest of the
brother of the owner who, without the knowledge of the owner, was
charged with selling a small quantity of cocaine in the restaurant
restroom. After five days of lost business and negative media
attention, the owner's lawyer got the decision reversed.

North Dakota customs agents in 1997 seized the money of 14 circus
employees crossing into Canada because together they carried just over
$10,000, the ceiling over which cash reporting forms must be filled
out.

And in 1998, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Houston seized a motel in a
high-crime area of the city, charging that the owners had ``tacitly
approved'' alleged drug activity by guests in the motel's rooms. There
were no allegations that the owners participated in any crimes, and
the government, before dropping its forfeiture proceedings five months
later, at one point recommended that the motel raise room rates as a
security measure.

``Who would have believed that under our current law the government
could confiscate a person's private property on a mere showing of
probable cause?'' said Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, top Democrat on
the Judiciary Committee.

In addition to shifting the burden of proof to the government, the
bill allows federal judges to release property to the owner if
continued government possession causes substantial hardship to the
owner. It 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 worth 10 percent of the property
value.

To win Justice Department approval, writers of the bill also added
several provisions to strengthen crime-fighting tools, including
giving federal courts the authority to issue civil restraining orders
when there is a strong probability the government will prevail in a
forfeiture and there is danger of the property being destroyed.

The bill number is H.R. 1658.

On the Net: Sen. Patrick Leahy statement:
http://www.senate.gov/(tilde)leahy/