SANITY ON ASSET SEIZURES

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote today or tomorrow on H.R.
1658, a bill that would reform civil asset forfeiture at the federal level.
Written by Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois and passed
out of the Judiciary Committee with a bipartisan 27-3 vote, the bill has
attracted support from legislators as diverse as Georgia Republican Bob
Barr and Michigan Democrat John Conyers. It still faces opposition from law
enforcement lobbies, who have written a substitute bill that includes a few
reforms but, on balance, expands forfeiture powers.

The overuse of civil asset forfeiture in recent years has been well
documented. Under current law, the police can take peoples' cars, homes,
other possessions and bank accounts on the basis of a tip from a paid
informant and not even have to charge the person whose property is taken
with a crime. In a reversal of the usual burden of proof, a person must
prove the property is not "guilty" of being used for or the fruits of a
crime. The government doesn't have to prove even that a crime was committed.

H.R. 1658 would force the government to prove property is related to a
crime and create an "innocent owner defense" whereby property owners who
are either unaware of or unsuccessfully try to stop criminal activity on
their property -- e.g., a landlord who unwittingly rented to a drug dealer
- -- could recover the property. It would eliminate the cost-bond
requirement, which now requires property owners to pay $5,000 or 10 percent
of the seized property's value to contest a seizure in court, extend the
time for filing a claim to contest a seizure and provide compensation for
property damage caused by federal agents.

These reforms are modest and overdue; indeed, a requirement that no
property shall be seized unless and until a person has been convicted of a
crime would have been welcome. But many police agencies, as former San Jose
police chief Joseph McNamara wrote in these pages a few weeks ago, have
become all too dependent on seizures for day-to-day budget items. While
many individual policemen share our concerns about abuse of asset
forfeiture laws, most police lobbying groups fear reforms that would reduce
the number of seizures.

In the long run, however, over-reliance on seizures undermines the
confidence citizens have in police agencies, even as it undermines the
concept of private property rights. Reform is essential. All of Orange
County's members of Congress should vote for H.R. 1658 and resist efforts
to water it down.

Citizens interested in expressing an opinion to legislators directly can go
to www.drcnet.org/forfeiture and sign a form letter that will be e-mailed
or faxed to one's congressional representative. The Drug Policy Foundation
has extensive background on forfeiture laws at
www.dpf.org/html/forfeiture.html.

Critics of lenient asset forfeiture laws have been complaining for years
and are finally being heard. By passing H.R. 1658 the House can begin to
reverse a trend that has too often made the War on Drugs a war on
individual rights.