FORFEITURE REFORM

The Senate Judiciary Committee has been wrangling for several weeks over S.
1931, a modest reform of federal civil asset forfeiture laws. This bill,
co-authored by Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Democratic Sen.
Patrick Leahy of Vermont is not as good as the Hyde bill (H.R. 1568) passed
last year by the House. But it could be the best chance for reform this
year.

Under current law, as loosened during the 1980s in another unfortunate side
effect of the drug war, federal agents can seize property they suspect is
the result of illegal activity without convicting - or even charging - the
owner with a crime.

In 85 percent of federal asset forfeiture cases, no charges are even
preferred. The owner then has to prove the property "innocent" to get it
back.

S. 1931 (Hatch/Leahy) would require the government to prove the property
seized was involved in a crime (the burden of proof is now on the owner(.

It doesn't require a conviction as proof, and its standard ("clear
preponderance" of the evidence) is weaker than the Hyde version, which would
require "clear and convincing evidence." It also omits some safeguards for
innocent citizens contained in the Hyde version.

And the Justice Department is trying to weaken it further.

Ted Bridges of the Drug Policy Foundation told us the main sticking point
seems to be the proposed elimination of a provision in current law that
requires somebody whose property is seized to post a bond equal to 10
percent of the value of the property before being allowed to contest the
seizure.

The Justice Department would prefer no reform of this onerous provision, but
is likely to negotiate a compromise.

The Judiciary Committee will meet again on Thursday. It is expected to
report out a forfeiture reform bill that, while far from perfect, would be
worth supporting.

A Web site (www.forfeiture.org) unveiled on Feb. 10 has already forwarded
7,000 (1,600 from California) letters U.S. senators on this issue. Many more
letters would be helpful.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee,
is viewed as a staunch opponent of this bill (an odd stance for somebody
viewed as a moderate or a liberal).

Sen. Barbara Boxer has not yet taken a position.