HOUSE OKS BILL RAISING STANDARDS FOR POLICE SEIZURES

Administration Opposes Legislation

WASHINGTON -- An unusual coalition of liberals and conservatives persuaded
the House of Representatives Thursday to approve legislation to make it much
harder for federal and state law enforcement authorities to confiscate
property before they bring criminal charges in narcotics and other cases.

By a vote of 375-48, the House for the first time rolled back nearly 30
years of criminal measures passed at the height of what were then called
wars on drugs and terrorism.

Those measures substantially broadened the authority of federal and state
authorities to seize houses, cars, cash and other assets before obtaining
criminal convictions.

Without actually threatening a veto, the Clinton administration opposed the
legislation, saying it would make it harder to combat crime.

A substitute measure diluting many of the central features of the bill and
supported by the White House was defeated, 268-155. No similar legislation
has been introduced in the Senate, but supporters of the House bill said
that its huge victory would put pressure on the Senate to act.

The measure -- which raises the legal standard for seizure, expands possible
legal defenses and provides lawyers to indigent property-owners involved in
such cases -- attracted a remarkable coalition of lawmakers and
organizations across a broad ideological spectrum.

Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., who has spent six years trying to pass the measure,
said it "puts civil liberties back in our judicial system."

Other House Judiciary Committee members who rose to endorse the measure
included Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich.; Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga.; and Rep. Barney
Frank, D-Mass.

What made their alliance so incongruous was the fact that less than a year
ago, the four lawmakers had been engaged in a bitterly emotional debate over
the impeachment of President Clinton, first in the House Judiciary
Committee, and later on the floor of the House. Hyde, the conservative
chairman of the committee, and Frank, one of its ranking liberal Democrats,
are often foils in law enforcement matters.

But on Thursday they were not only unified in their support of the measure,
but also in accord in denouncing the administration-backed weaker substitute.

Frank called the alternative an effort "to lower the standards too low."

He was joined in denouncing both current law and the administration's
measure by Barr, another opponent, who said that the existing law had
"become the monetary tail wagging the law enforcement dog."

"Balancing the important needs of law enforcement means striking the
criminal where it hurts, in the pocket book, but not with a blunderbuss,"
said Barr.

But opponents of the measure said it went too far.

"Let us not turn back the clock on the war on drugs," said Rep. Jim Ramstad,
D-Minn., a supporter of the alternative bill that failed.

With a growing number of cases of innocent people seeing their assets
seized, the lawmakers adopted a bill that would require the government to
prove "by clear and convincing evidence" that the property was subject to
forfeiture because of illegal use.

Under current law, the burden of proof lies with the person whose property
was seized, and the government has to show only "probable cause" that the
property is subject to forfeiture.

The legislation broadens the available defense to such seizures and
eliminates the requirement that a property owner post a 10 percent bond to
challenge a seizure. It also would require the government to provide lawyers
to property owners who could not afford them and gives property owners more
time to challenge seizures.

The proposal supported by the Clinton administration would have had a far
lower standard for confiscating evidence, permitting forfeitures if a
"preponderance of the evidence" showed they were part of a criminal act. The
Clinton proposal also would have sharply limited the provision that gives
property owners the right to have lawyers provided by the government.

Existing law, which gives wide discretion to federal and state law
enforcement officials to seize property, is the product of three measures
adopted since 1970 during a period when Congress appeared less preoccupied
with civil liberties issues and more concerned about combatting terrorism
and drug-trafficking.

But in recent years, public sentiment has begun to turn about the issue, and
was reflected by the breadth of the coalition pushing for Thursday's
measure. The group included the American Bar Association, the National Rifle
Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Tax Reform,
the American Bankers Association, the National Association of Criminal
Defense Lawyers and the United States Chamber of Commerce.