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.