JUSTICE FORFEITED

Hyde And Unlikely Allies Target Abuse Of Citizens

Before he turned vain and grandiloquent as one of the House managers in
President Clinton's impeachment trial, U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois
commanded respect on both sides of the aisle. Now he is harking back to his
former statesmanship by joining with Democrats to champion a key
civil-liberties bill.

The legislation - HR 1658 - would make it harder for federal authorities to
seize property that they suspect is linked to a crime. The Justice
Department considers forfeiture of civil assets to be one of the key tools
in the so-called war on drugs. Unfortunately, it threatens not only drug
lords but also innocent people. As currently written, the law is an
invitation to abuse by prosecutors and law-enforcement officials.

As Post-Gazette reporter Bill Moushey documented last year in his
award-winning series on prosecutorial misconduct, federal authorities
cannot always be trusted to behave scrupulously. In the case of civil
forfeiture, the burden ought to be solidly on the government to prove
criminal misuse that would justify seizing a property.

Unfortunately, it is not. Right now, you don't even have to be convicted of
a crime, or even arrested, to have your property seized. Because the
proceedings are civil, the full panoply of constitutional protections are
not available to those who are penalized.

A number of horror stories exist of people who have had property seized on
mere suspicion, or who owned property that was used by a third party -
without the owner's knowledge or consent - as a place to deal drugs. Rep.
Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote a 1995 book about
the abuses and his push for this legislation is part of a six-year crusade.

HR 1658 requires the government to show "by clear and convincing evidence"
that the confiscated property was linked to a crime. Under current law, the
government must show only probable cause to seize property and the burden
of proof is on the owner to stop the confiscation. In addition, the
legislation specifically gives more protection to innocent owners who did
not know their property was the site of illegal activities.

Law enforcement agencies oppose this legislation and will make overheated
suggestions that drug prosecutions will be hampered if Americans are given
a law that is more in keeping with their constitutional traditions.

But this is one piece of legislation that conservatives and liberals can
support. Indeed, it is backed by both the American Civil Liberties Union
and the National Rifle Association and by congressmen as different as Reps.
Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican, and Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat.
It passed the House of Representatives on June 24 by a margin of 375-48.

Unfortunately, its prospects are uncertain in the Senate, where no
companion bill exists. It can only be hoped that members of that chamber
also will stand up for ordinary Americans against the power of government.