KISS IT GOODBYE

COLLATERAL DAMAGE FROM THE WAR ON DRUGS

The owners of the Red Carpet Motel in Houston, located in a rough part of
town, had a problem: Patrons were trafficking in illegal drugs. They called
the Houston police dozens of times to report criminal activity, helping
produce arrests that yielded some $800,000 worth of drugs. They installed
security cameras to monitor the parking lot. They gave cops permission to
patrol the grounds at will and question anyone on the property.

But the problem persisted. So last year, the U.S. attorney decided it was
time to get tough--not on the criminals, but on the motel owners. He seized
their property and initiated proceedings to confiscate it.

The Red Carpet proprietors were not accused of selling drugs, buying drugs,
participating in the drug trade or committing any other violation of the
law. But the federal prosecutor brought the hammer down on them because, he
insisted, they had not done enough to stop the illegal commerce--even though
the Houston police department itself, with all its officers and firepower,
had not been able to stop it either.

What should the owners have done differently? Well, said the U.S. attorney,
they could have charged higher rates for their rooms. He's right, of course.
If they had raised their rates above what the market would bear, they could
have put themselves out of business. No motel equals no customers equals no
problem.

For lapses like this, the government said it had the right to confiscate the
property of people not charged with any crime, much less convicted of one.
Under current law, it does have that right. If police or prosecutors surmise
some tenuous connection between an item of property and a crime, they can
seize the asset. And it is up to the owner to prove his innocence, at his
expense, in the hope of getting it back.

Civil forfeiture, as this practice is known, is intended to punish and deter
criminals by depriving them of property used to commit crimes and property
acquired with ill-gotten gains. That's the theory. But in 80 percent of
these cases, the alleged wrongdoers are never charged with a crime. For that
matter, forfeiture can be inflicted even on people who have been tried and
acquitted. It exists in a scary world where punishment can occur without a
crime, where those under suspicion are presumed guilty until proven
innocent, and where law enforcement authorities have a powerful financial
incentive to mistreat citizens.

Examples abound. A Tennessee gardener taking a trip to buy shrubs was
stopped by police, who confiscated the $9,600 in cash he was carrying,
prompting him to marvel: "I didn't know it was against the law for a
42-year-old black man to have money in his pocket." A Michigan woman lost
the car she co-owned with her husband after he used it to pick up a
prostitute. A Chicago pizzeria owner was relieved of $500,000 in suspected
"drug money" found in his restaurant; four years later, the cops were told
to give it back by a federal court, which found the suspicion utterly
without merit.

But help is on the way. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde,
unable to stomach such injustices, has built a bipartisan consensus that our
civil forfeiture laws need fundamental reforms--bringing together
conservative Republican members like Bob Barr and liberal Democrats like
Barney Frank, who a few months ago were at each other's throats over
impeachment. On June 24, the House overwhelmingly approved a bill to
restrain law-enforcement agencies that have used forfeiture like cluster
bombs, injuring the innocent as well as the guilty.

The reforms are hardly radical. They shift the burden of proof in disputed
seizures from the citizen to the government, bar the government from taking
the property of innocent owners, furnish lawyers to poor victims and award
interest to owners who successfully sue to get their money back.

The Clinton administration claims the Hyde bill gives aid and comfort to
drug traffickers and money launderers. This, of course, is the sort of thing
police say whenever they are required to respect the rights of citizens. But
often, we have only the Justice Department's word that the victims are
criminals, since most of them are never even prosecuted.

The new rules on civil forfeiture would have little effect on the
government's ability to confiscate the property of those actually convicted
of crimes. If federal agencies want to punish criminals, they should first
take the trouble to prove criminal guilt.

Right now, they have vast power to harass and abuse citizens in the name of
fighting evil, and the victims have little recourse. The Hyde bill is a firm
rebuke to those who have turned the war on drugs into a war on the American
people.