LET'S LIMIT POLICE SEIZURE PRACTICES

At the risk of seeming old-fashioned, we believe that punishment for a crime
should follow conviction, not precede it. But that belief is in conflict
with current federal law.

Police purportedly use the power of civil asset forfeiture as a weapon
against big-time criminals, especially drug traffickers -- increasing the
impact of the law by relieving them of their ill-gotten gains.

Indeed, confiscating and selling luxury cars, yachts and jewels believed to
have been bought with crime-stained money has a rough-justice, "book 'em,
Danno" appeal to it.

But there is a taint to this logic that has been largely overlooked in the
zeal to fight crime. Giving local, state and federal police agencies the
power to confiscate and sell property from the accused, to swell their own
coffers, is a recipe for corruption.

Justice Department statistics have shown that in 80 percent of the asset
forfeiture cases, those whose property was taken were not even charged with
a crime.

Yet in many cases the property is never returned or has already been liquidated.

It took four years for the owner of a Chicago pizza place to get back more
than $500,000 federal agents took from his restaurant.

It took more than two years for Willie Jones, an African American
landscaper, to recover $9,600 seized by federal agents at a Nashville
airport in 1991 when he aroused suspicion by buying a $267 plane ticket with
cash.

Why should the property of the acquitted be the consolation prize for a
failed prosecution?

"They don't have to convict you. They don't even have to charge you with a
crime. But they have your property," according to Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill.

Hyde is the sponsor of a bill that would tighten the leash on the
government's ability to snatch the possessions of the accused.

The bill passed the House last month with overwhelming bipartisan support.
Co-sponsors included John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., conservative Robert Barr
Jr., R-Ga., and liberal Barney Frank, D-Mass. The bill is backed by both the
National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union.

It passed the House, 375-48, supported by Washington state's entire
delegation. Our senators should follow suit.

The bill would shift the burden of proof from the accused to the accusers,
with government having to produce "clear and convincing" evidence that the
assets are the fruits of crime. It would allow defendants suffering
demonstrable hardship to get the property back while awaiting trial; and in
some cases require interest payments on confiscated money and even provide
indigent defendants with legal aid in trying to get their property back.

The spirit of due process demands that if we're going to take someone's
property away in punishment for a crime we at least wait until they are
convicted of that crime.