HOUSE EASES LAW ON SEIZURE OF PROPERTY OF CRIMINAL SUSPECTS

WASHINGTON - In an unusual alliance of conservative constitutionalists and
liberal civil libertarians, the House has voted overwhelmingly to curb the
federal government's ability to seize private property suspected of being
linked to crime.

Too many innocent citizens have been deprived of their possessions without
due process, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., said
yesterday before the measure was approved, 375-48.

Police have used civil-asset forfeiture for such things as shutting down
drug houses quickly by taking possession of them or hitting drug traffickers
in the wallet even before charges are filed.

But yesterday, both Republicans and Democrats criticized current federal
law, which lets officers seize property simply because they suspect it was
involved in wrongdoing.

"They don't have to convict you. They don't even have to charge you with a
crime. But they have your property," Hyde said. "This is a throwback to the
old Soviet Union, where justice is the justice of the government and the
citizen doesn't have a chance."

Rep. William Delahunt D-Mass. told the House that 80 percent of those whose
property are seized are never even charged with a crime.

Some supporters of the bill said the current asset-forfeiture law can be an
opportunity for abuse by law-enforcement agencies hungry for money.

"In many jurisdictions, it has become a monetary tail wagging the
law-enforcement dog," said Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga.

The bill - introduced by Hyde and the Judiciary Committee's senior Democrat,
Rep. John Conyers of Michigan - would require the federal government to
prove with "clear and convincing" evidence the property was eligible for
forfeiture if an owner files a legal challenge.

All members of the Washington state delegation supported the bill.

The legislation would also:

- -- Require officers to prove criminality, not simply allege it. Current law
requires property owners to prove they are not connected with the alleged
crime.

- -- Require the government to give owners notice before seizing property.
Owners would have 30 days - compared with the current 10 days - to challenge
a seizure in court.

- -- Enable a judge to release property to the owner if continued government
possession would pose a substantial hardship.

- -- Allow judges to appoint counsel for poor defendants.

- -- Let owners sue the government for negligence if their property is lost or
damaged.

- -- Allow some owners of seized cash to receive interest if a judge orders
the money returned.

- -- Apply only to civil asset forfeitures, not criminal ones, although civil
forfeitures often are involved in criminal cases. It would not affect state
forfeiture laws.

In 1998, the federal government seized about $449 million worth of property
through civil and criminal forfeitures. Some of the proceeds were sent to
state and local law-enforcement agencies that helped in investigations.

The Clinton administration said the Hyde-Conyers bill "would have a serious
negative effect on the federal government's ability to combat drug
trafficking, alien smuggling, terrorism, consumer fraud and many other
criminal offenses."

No companion bill has been introduced in the Senate.

The bill is H.R. 1658.