SEIZING THE INITIATIVE

Congress has an opportunity to restore the Fourth Amendment "right of the
people to be secure...against unreasonable searches and seizures." In the
past 25 years, governments at all levels have seized people's property
without a court conviction - and in an alarming number of cases, the people
later were found to be innocent.

To rectify the wrong, Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois, the Republican chairman
of the House Judiciary Committee, has introduced House Resolution 1658,
which would correct the most egregious abuses by government.

Probably the worst seizure case involved Don Scott, a rancher in Ventura
County. When federal, state and local task force members swooped down to
seize his property in 1992 for alleged marijuana cultivation, Mr. Scott was
startled and picked up a gun to defend himself and his wife. He was shot
dead by the government agents.

No marijuana - or anything else illegal - was found on Mr. Scott's ranch.

A report by Ventura County District Attorney Michael D. Bradbury concluded
the raid "was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit
the ranch for the government.... In order to seize and forfeit property
under either California or federal law, there is no requirement that an
individual be arrested or charged criminally."

It's just such abuses of power that HR 1658 would prevent. It would:

Change the burden of proof, so a person is considered innocent until proven
guilty in a court of law, as mandated by the Fifth Amendment. "Currently,
the burden of proof is on the owner to prove it wasn't used in a drug deal,
or other crime," Tim Lynch, associate director of the Cato Institute for
Constitutional Studies, told us. "Hyde's bill would change that burden of
proof to the government."

It would stop the property proceeds from going to the law-enforcement
agencies. "Right now, they get to keep what they seize," Mr. Lynch
explained of the government agents. That's what apparently led to the
tragic shooting of Mr. Scott, as Mr. Bradbury explained in his report.
Under HR 1658, any seized money would go into the federal government's
general fund.

The law would require the feds to pay for any damange to property while in
federal custody. The property owner could sue for damages. "Right now, if
your property is damaged, tough luck," Mr. Lynch said.

It would extend the time period people could appeal a property seizure to
60 days from 10 days. The short period to file a claim, just 10 days, shows
how current law favors the government. Can you imagine being clear-headed
enough to line up legal help and press a case immediately after such an
intrusion?

The bond requirement to file a claim to get back stolen property,
amazingly, is 10 percent or $5,000 (whichever is less). The money
supposedly covers government processing cost should a claim be rejected.
"That's a big deterrent for indigent claimants," Mr. Lynch said. The Hyde
bill would eliminate the requirement.

Rep. Hyde introduced similar legislation last year. But the Justice
Department and the FBI forced amendments to the bill that not only diluted
it, but made seizure laws worse.

This time, Mr. Lynch believes, chances are better. "Hyde says his sense is
that they're going to get it through the Congress this year." What about
President Clinton? "He has been a wild card" on the issue, Mr. Lynch said.

HR 1658 is being supported not only by such conservative Republicans as
Rep. Hyde, but by such liberal forces as the American Civil Liberties Union
and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

California's senators and Orange County's representatives should support HR
1658. Americans need protection against the government's seizure fever.