GETTING CIVIL

HOUSE JUDICIARY Committee Chairman Henry Hyde believes the Willie
Jones story provides a fitting introduction to what he calls the
``Kafkaesque world of civil asset forfeiture,'' or the government
seizure of property believed to be associated with criminal conduct.

In 1991 Jones, a Tennessee gardener, bought a plane ticket to Houston
where he planned to look at some nursery stock. The ticket agent
alerted authorities because Jones, who is (probably not
coincidentally) black, paid cash. Nashville police searched Jones for
drugs. They found none.

Their dogs, however, found trace elements on the $9,600 he had in his
wallet. (That's not unusual since 97 percent of cash in circulation
contains traces of drugs.) They didn't charge Jones but they took his
cash.

And it was legal.

And it took years before a federal court made them give Jones' money
back.

The Cato Institute's Roger Pilon calls asset forfeiture ``a shakedown.
This is a body of law that authorizes the police to act as thieves
with badges.'' Who can argue when police can take an innocent man's
money?

``Of course, if you are familiar with civil asset forfeiture, you know
that nothing was amiss with Mr. Jones' experience. The government does
not have to convict you of a crime to civilly forfeit your property.
Property can be forfeited, even if you are acquitted. Even better, the
government doesn't even have to charge you with a crime,'' Hyde
explained in prepared remarks as he announced that he is
re-introducing legislation to reform civil asset forfeiture laws.

Congress must act because the U.S. Supreme Court often is on the wrong
side of the issue. Three years ago, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of
the seizure of the family car of Tina and John Bennis, after John
Bennis was caught in the act with a prostitute in the family 1977
Pontiac in Detroit. John Bennis was fined and sentenced to community
service. Tina Bennis had pleaded that Detroit had no right to seize a
car that was half hers. Besides, hadn't she suffered enough? No, the
Big Bench said. Under the law, the car was guilty of participating in
a crime.

Justice Ruth Ginsburg even had the cheek to argue that since the car
was worth only $600, there was so little money left over after selling
it and settling administrative costs, it wasn't worth giving Tina
Bennis half.

Pilon argues that most asset forfeitures aren't challenged because
most concern property worth under $5,000. It's not worth paying a
lawyer to fight.

And it's not easy to win these cases. Present law requires owners to
prove a negative -- that they, or their property, are innocent. Since
some federal statutes allow seizure even when the owner is innocent,
Hyde's bill would prohibit the taking of property from innocent
owners. So if you didn't know the people who were renting your boat
would smoke pot on it, the feds couldn't seize it. His legislation
also would require that the federal government prove cause for a
seizure, instead of requiring owners to prove innocence.

Liberal Representatives Barney Frank, D-Mass., and John Conyers,
D-Mich., are joining conservatives Hyde and Representative Bob Barr,
R-Georgia. The Judiciary Committee should pass this bill soon. Then
it's on to the full House and Senate. Pilon rates the bill's chances
as ``50-50.''

Congress should pass this law. It is simply un-American to allow
police to take property without charging the owners with a crime.
Police shouldn't be able to take a man's money just because he paid
cash. If John Bennis sees a prostitute, authorities should punish him,
not his wife. The Hyde bill wouldn't even make these abuses go away,
but it would make it harder for the government to act with such craven
disregard for fairness.