HOUSE BILL WOULD PUT LIMITS ON ASSET SEIZURES

A battle is raging in the U.S. Senate over a House-approved forfeiture
reform that puts greater restrictions on asset seizure.

The seven-year reform effort by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry
Hyde, R-Ill., has created strange bedfellows, with disparate groups like the
American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association both
supporting the reform bill.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who locked horns with Rep. Hyde during the
debate over the impeachment of President Clinton, also supports the bill.

It passed the House overwhelmingly, 375-48, on June 24 and is now under the
review a Senate subcommittee.

"It was such an overwhelming vote that most assume it is going to go through
the Senate," said attorney Robert Bauman. A former Maryland congressman, he
now serves on the board of directors of FEAR -- Forfeiture Endangers
American Rights, a Washington lobby group.

Last year, federal law-enforcement agencies seized $450 million in assets
using civil forfeiture proceedings.

"Conservative estimates are that $7 billion to $8 billion has gone into the
hands of police at federal, state and local levels in the last 20 years,"
Mr. Bauman said.

"In one or two states, they channel that money into specific uses --
Missouri puts it into their educational system -- but almost all others go
directly to the police, creating a self-financing conflict of interest."

The Clinton administration and the Justice Department both oppose the bill,
saying it goes too far in protecting drug dealers and other criminals.

The outcome of the debate is particularly important, Mr. Bauman said,
because anyone could find themselves the subject of a federal
investigation -- unlike other criminal cases, interstate commerce does not
have to be proven for the federal agents to get involved.

And, he said, there are many cases where innocent people find their property
confiscated and it takes years for them to get it back.

"Eighty percent of the people whose property is taken are never charged with
a crime and most of them cannot afford to fight it and get their property
back," Mr. Bauman said.

As it stands, the federal law gives authorities wide latitude in what can be
seized -- the government only has to prove with "probable cause" that the
property was used or acquired in a crime. The property owner then must
challenge the government and prove that it wasn't in order to get the
property back.

Massachusetts law allows similar civil forfeitures, but district attorneys
say they almost never file a civil charges unless criminal charges also have
been filed against a defendant.

Under the Hyde bill, the federal government will have to prove with "clear
and convincing" evidence that the property was eligible for forfeiture if an
owner files a legal challenge.

The Clinton administration has offered a compromise, suggesting a
"preponderance" of evidence be the standard -- a lower threshold of proof
than the Hyde bill proposes, yet higher than what currently exists.

In a July 21 Senate subcommittee hearing on the bill, Deputy Attorney
General Eric Holder opposed it, saying it "crosses the line between
providing due process and giving unintended relief to drug dealers, money
launderers, and other criminals who victimize the elderly and the vulnerable
in our society."

At the same hearing, Rep. Hyde defended the bill, saying police should not
be able to seize property simply because they suspect it was involved in a
crime.

"There are some issues that really get to you, and this is the one," he
said, according to an Associated Press report. "I think if you're a drug
dealer and you're guilty -- not just accused, but you're guilty -- that you
ought to lose your house, your car, and your shoes and socks. But when
you're not guilty ... I don't want my country confiscating property."