FORFEITURE LAW TARGETED IN CONGRESS

Property Seizures Sometimes Are Hasty

WASHINGTON -- In California, a wealthy rancher was shot to death by federal
agents who burst into his home on suspicion that he was cultivating
marijuana. It later turned out he strongly opposed illegal drugs.

A local district attorney concluded after an investigation that the
government was more interested in seizing his valuable property under civil
forfeiture laws than on making a drug arrest.

In Detroit, former New York Giants football player Kevin Belcher was
detained by Drug Enforcement Administration agents because, as a black man
who had bought a one-way ticket to El Paso, Texas, he fit the profile of a
drug courier.

The DEA confiscated about $18,000 in cash he was carrying -- again under
the civil forfeiture law. It was later discovered that he was going to an
auction to buy a classic car.

These are two examples in a long inventory of cases assembled by critics of
a 210-year-old statute -- more recently beefed up by Congress to help fight
the war on drugs, child pornography, financial fraud and carjacking -- that
aims to deny wrongdoers the fruits of their criminal enterprises.

On Thursday, the House of Representatives voted 375-48 to set new rules for
how the federal government seizes private property in such cases. All
members of the Michigan delegation voted for the bill.

Sponsors include various foes turned allies -- such as Judiciary Committee
Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., a conservative, and Rep. Barney Frank,
D-Mass., a liberal -- who hope to remedy what they see as a license to
abuse the rights of innocent people. Cosponsors include liberal John
Conyers, D-Mich., and conservative Bob Barr, R-Ga.

Critics contend that hundreds of innocent people have been victimized by
overzealous law enforcers who are eager to crush drug dealing and to
fortify their budgets with the fruits of their property seizures.

"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 Thursday. "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."

Congress began turning to forfeiture as a law enforcement tool in 1978,
when crime and drugs were among the main worries of voters. By last year,
about $449 million in seized property in both civil and criminal forfeiture
cases went to the federal government.

Federal officials say most of the more flagrant abuses cited by critics
occurred several years ago and that various reforms by the Justice and
Treasury departments have minimized the chances of future abuses.

"The Hyde bill is trying to solve a problem that's already been solved,"
Justice Department spokesman Myron Marlin said Wednesday. "...Nowadays, 85
percent of the 30,000 seizures we make each year are not even contested."

Hyde's bill would, among other things, require the government to prove that
the property seized was part of a criminal activity; currently, the
property owner bears the burden of proving the property was not used in a
crime. The bill also would pay interest to a property owner who gets back
any seized money.

The Justice Department has agreed to those two points. But it opposes other
proposals, such as allowing federal judges to order disputed property
released to the owner pending final disposition of the case. "That bill
would make it easier for criminals to hold on to their ill-gotten gains,"
Marlin said.

The House voted 268-155 to reject an alternative that would have allowed
police to seize property based on a lower standard of proof -- a
"preponderance" of the evidence rather than "clear and convincing" evidence.

The legislation now goes to the Senate, where the Judiciary Committee has
not held hearings on it.