CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURES SPRING FROM GOOD INTENTIONS

By seizing property that they suspect was used in a crime or was
bought with money obtained illegally, law-enforcement agencies can
shut down drug houses and hit ''crime bosses'' where it hurts most -
in the wallet.

That is in theory. But there is a tendency for law enforcement
agencies, hungry to money to supplement tight budgets, to use that
power zealously.

U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., tells of Willie Jones, an
African-American from Nashville. Police, thinking it suspicious that
Jones was paying cash for an airline ticket, searched him. They found
$9,600 in cash, on which a police dog detected traces of drugs.

Even though 97 percent of all currency apparently now has such traces,
they seized the money - which nearly drove Jones' landscaping service
out of business. Jones, who was never charged with a crime, does not
have the $960 bond needed to mount a challenge.

Jones, unfortunately, is fairly typical. Eighty percent of those whose
property is seized are not charged with a crime. Hyde calls the law
''a throwback to the old Soviet Union, where justice is the justice of
the government and the citizen doesn't have a chance.''

The U.S. House, to its credit, recently approved Hyde's reform bill.
It requires officers to prove criminality, not simply allege it.

Current law requires property owners to prove they are not connected
with the crime.

Hyde's bill also would allow judges to appoint a lawyer for those who
can't afford one. It would allow individuals to sue if their property
is damaged or lost. And they could be awarded interest if a judge
orders the return of cash.

The Clinton administration found few followers when it opposed Hyde's
reforms. The bill passed by a 375-to-48 vote, with all three of
Jacksonville's members voting in favor.

The bill goes to the Senate, which should pass it by a veto-proof
margin