BILL AIMS TO CURTAIL SEIZURES

Supporters Praise Forfeiture Law's Ability To Punish, Prevent Crime

- -- 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 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 in making a drug arrest.

In Detroit, a former professional football player was detained by the
Drug Enforcement Administration because, as a black man who had
purchased a one-way ticket to El Paso, Texas, he fit the profile of a
drug courier. The DEA confiscated $18,000 in cash the player was
carrying -- again under the civil forfeiture law. It was later
discovered the player was going to an auction to buy a classic car.

These are but two examples in a long inventory of case studies
assembled by critics of a 210-year-old statute that aims to deny
wrongdoers the fruits of their criminal enterprises.

Today, the House of Representatives is scheduled to take up a bill
sponsored by some old congressional foes turned allies -- Judiciary
Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., a conservative, and Rep. Barney
Frank, D-Mass., a liberal -- that would try to remedy what they see as
a license to abuse the rights of innocent people.

Justice Department spokesman Myron Marlin said Wednesday that "civil
forfeiture is an incredibly effective tool" for authorities to deprive
criminals of the assets they need to thrive.

In the past decade, Marlin said, the federal government alone has
averaged $500 million a year in seizures, mostly in cash, but also in
property such as cars, boats and planes.

Mark Calloway, chief federal prosecutor for the Western District of
North Carolina, said civil forfeiture laws have helped his office
punish criminals and have helped to stifle further criminal activity.

In the year ending September 1998, Western District prosecutors seized
$8.3 million in goods and cash.

"They're a very effective tool in both taking the profit out of crime
and in taking the assets used to help accomplish the crime," he said.
"No one wants to allow . . . people who have violated the law to keep
their ill-gotten gains."

Calloway said he couldn't recall any instance during his 5-year tenure
where a court ordered his office to return seized property.

Critics, some of whom carry law-and-order credentials, contend that
hundreds of innocent people have been victimized by overzealous law
enforcers who are as eager to crush drug dealing as they are to
fortify their budgets with the fruits of their property seizures. (The
proceeds collected by the federal government, for instance, are
divided 50-50 between federal law enforcement agencies, and state and
local ones.)

Congress began turning to forfeiture as a law enforcement tool in
1978, when crime and drugs were among the main worries of American
voters. In the past several years, however, crime has been on the
decline, and the public has turned to other issues.

Federal officials say most of the flagrant abuses cited by critics
occurred several years ago and that 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," Marlin said. "Both the FBI and DEA now require, for instance,
that all seizures be screened at headquarters here to make sure
there's an actual basis for the seizure. Nowadays, 85 percent of the
30,000 seizures we make each year are not even contested. And of the
remaining 15 percent that are, we only lose about 4 percent of the
cases."

But Rep. Frank insisted that the legislation is still needed to deter
abuses that are almost bound to occur because of the financial
interest law enforcers have in the proceeds of seizures.

Hyde's bill would:

Require the government to prove that the property seized was part of a
criminal activity. Under the existing procedure, the property owner
bears the burden of proving that the property was not used in a crime.

Raise the government's standard of proof to one of "clear and
convincing evidence" that the property was linked to the crime. Now
the government need only show "probable cause" to seize suspect
property. And the Justice Department is arguing that any new standard
of proof should be by a "preponderance of evidence" -- a lower
standard -- that the property warranted seizure.

Staff writer Phuong Ly contributed to this article.