GETTING CONTROL OF FORFEITURE ABUSES

In late February 1991, Willie Jones, a landscaper from Nashville, prepared
to board a flight to Houston. He had $9,000 in his pocket - money to buy
plants for his business. He paid cash for his plane ticket.

But Jones was detained. An airline employee told him no one paid cash for
tickets. Police suspected drugs. Dogs sniffed out the money, and the
officers took it. They didn't arrest Jones. They charged him with nothing.
But they took the money.

Jones eventually got his $9,000 back, but not before suffering an
unwarranted search and seizure and the tribulations of proving his cash was
not payment for a crime.

Jones' story and other tales of law enforcement abuse of the country's
federal forfeiture statutes led the House of Representatives recently to
pass a bill more respectful of basic civil liberties. In a lopsided and
strongly bipartisan vote, House lawmakers decided current forfeiture laws
are more oppressive of individual rights than helpful anticrime tools.

Ignoring the pleas of law enforcement and the Clinton administration, the
House approved a bill that would make it harder for police to seize property
simply because they are suspicious a person might have been involved in
wrongdoing.

House members were treated to stories from law enforcement victims, people
like the motel owners in Houston who built a business in a bad part of town.
Despite no criminal allegations against them, the U.S. Attorney there seized
the motel because the owners failed to have installed security measures
dictated by law enforcement. The prosecutor bragged he would use the law on
similarly situated businesses. He earned a strong rebuke from an appellate
court.

And there was the Nevada airplane owner who flew a charter passenger from
Arkansas to Canada. Unknown to him, his passenger was a convicted drug
dealer. Upon landing, authorities seized the plane and charged the pilot
with drug trafficking, but quickly dropped the charges.

Nevertheless, the pilot spent $85,000 in legal fees trying to get his plane
back. Eventually he agreed to pay $7,000 to the government in a settlement,
only to learn the Drug Enforcement Administration had caused $100,000 damage
to the plane. He filed for bankruptcy. He now drives a truck.

Civil asset forfeiture is a time-honored government tool. During the
earliest days of this country, authorities used forfeiture to seize ships
and cargo thought to be in violation of the customs laws. This was important
because at the time, customs duties constituted more than 80 percent of
federal revenues.

Three times since 1970, Congress has passed federal forfeiture measures
designed to combat drug lords and international terrorism. Unfortunately,
the laws essentially ceded individual rights to allow law enforcement
agencies to seize property they believe ill-gotten.

We don't argue against the concept of seizing tainted property, but law
enforcement agencies have a direct financial interest in the enforcement of
these laws, and there is no requirement they account to legislators for the
receipt of property or the expenditure of money once the property is sold.

In recent years enormous revenues have been generated by federal
forfeitures. The amount deposited in the Justice Department's forfeiture
fund increased from $27 million in 1985 to $556 million in 1993 and then
decreased to $449 million in 1998. As of the end of 1998, a total of 24,903
seized assets valued at $1 billion were on deposit.

Buttressed by these numbers and incredible tales of abuse, U.S. Rep. Henry
Hyde introduced the legislation to reform the law. He's spent four years
trying to get the bill out of the House, and this year it may have a chance
in the Senate. Hyde was joined by liberal Democrats John Conyers Jr. of
Michigan and Barney Frank of Massachusetts as well as conservative Robert
Barr of Georgia. They in turn enlisted the support of such diverse
organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle
Association, as well as groups of bankers, lawyers, Realtors, and others.

``You hear these terrible stories, and you just can't believe these things
can happen in this country,'' Hyde told the Washington Post. ``People take
their due process rights for granted, but they have no idea that these laws
exist.''

The Hyde bill would shift the burden of proof in forfeiture cases. No longer
would defendants be forced to prove at their own expense that their property
was not linked to criminal activity. Prosecutors would have to show by
``clear and convincing evidence,'' not a mere suspicion, that the property
was somehow dirty.

The bill would also give a defendant the chance to get his property back
before trial if he can show substantial hardship. The bill would award
interest to property owners who persuade judges to return their money. And
it would provide indigent defendants access to government-paid lawyers.

These reforms will not hurt the anticrime efforts of law enforcement. But
they should help prevent egregious abuses. The House passage provided a
chance for unusual bipartisan posturing, but the bill itself brings fairness
to civil forfeiture laws.

We hope the Senate takes up the measure and has the good sense to follow the
House's lead.