THE LONG, GRABBY ARM OF THE LAW

Federal law on the seizing of money and goods from alleged criminals
richly deserves the left-right combination punch the House of
Representatives has given it.

Henry Hyde, from the right, and Barney Frank, from the left, agree:
Americans must be protected from the temptations that asset forfeiture
law places before law enforcement officials. Federal law makes it too
easy for police to seize goods; too tempting, because they get to sell
the stuff and keep the money; and too hard for the owners to get it
back.

Law enforcement officials argue that the abuses the new law would
address have already been halted. But on a matter so fundamental to
basic rights, the country ought to rely on the law, not the good will
of police agencies.

Police can seize money or goods that they believe were used in crimes
or were purchased with the proceeds of crimes. Under the right rules,
that's as it should be. Crack dealers shouldn't get to keep the
Mercedes bought with drug profits. But forfeiture law as a whole has
tilted too far toward the police.

The Hyde bill passed Thursday 375-48, with the support of liberals
such as Frank. It concerns civil forfeiture laws, under which federal
agents may seize the assets of suspects without a hearing, a trial or
even an arrest. Often, the government can keep what it has seized even
though the suspects are not found guilty or even released without
being arrested.

The bill would require that the government prove, by "clear and
convincing evidence," that the seized property was part of criminal
activity. Under current law, the owner has to prove its innocence.

The bill would remove a requirement that the owner post a 10 percent
bond just to get a hearing on whether the seizure was illegal, and it
would permit the appointment of an attorney at public expense, as in
criminal charges against a person, for those unable to afford one.

The bill would also allow owners to get interest on money held
illegally by the government and to sue if their property is damaged.

Asset forfeiture laws have invited abuse by police agencies because
they permit them to keep the money they seize or the proceeds from
selling seized goods, such as the jewelry, boats and luxury cars of
drug dealers. For the past decade, the federal government has made
$500 million a year from seized assets, mostly cash.

The backward nature of forfeiture law -- having to prove the goods are
innocent -- comes from its origin in preventing imports from evading
tariffs. But seizing goods from people is not punishing the goods;
it's punishing the people. Effectively, it's a kind of fine. And just
as people do not have to prove themselves innocent to avoid fines or
prison, they should not have to prove their goods innocent to get them
back from police.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution prevents the government from
depriving people of "life, liberty or property, without due process of
law." The Hyde bill would change federal law on forfeiting assets so
that it is no longer a law that requires Americans to forfeit their
rights.