CIVIL FORFEITURE LAWS IN DESPERATE NEED OF CHANGE

Like most Americans, I breathe a sigh of relief when I return to U.S.
soil after a foreign trip.

Abroad, many of us fear that some tinpot foreign bureaucrat may seize
us or our possessions, whether we've done anything wrong or not. As it
turns out, there's not much a self-respecting foreign despot will do
to violate your property rights that your own government won't.

Most of us assume the government can't take property as a sanction
unless you've been convicted of a crime - beyond a reasonable doubt -
by a jury of your peers. Most of us are wrong. Numerous federal laws -
most prominently drug laws - allow some 100 agencies to seize
personal property and land when the feds claim to have "probable
cause" that property itself was used in, or "facilitated," an illegal
transaction. After that, you have to prove you're innocent.

Many states, Arizona included, have similar civil forfeiture
provisions. New York City's decision to seize the cars of alleged
drunk drivers - and to keep them even if the drivers are later
acquitted - is just the latest outrage.

Under these civil forfeiture laws, it is not necessary for the
property owner to be convicted or even charged with a crime. For
instance, you could lose your house if your teenager used or sold
drugs there, even without your knowledge or consent. It's a great
scam for the government, which knows few people will hire a lawyer to
try to prove a negative.

The feds routinely assert that probable cause is demonstrated by the
flimsiest of facts, like being well-dressed and paying cash for an
airline ticket. According to the government, probable cause that an
airline passenger is a drug courier may be shown by the fact that he exits
the plane at
the front (he's nervous), in the middle (he's trying to blend in), or
the back (he's trying to appear casual). Picture Karl Malden on TV,
telling us to carry traveler's checks so the Drug Enforcement Agency
can't take our cash.

As Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a recent forfeiture
case, the average American "might well assume that such a scheme is
lawless - a violation of due process." Unfortunately, as Justice
Thomas added, gripping a soda can, the modest constitutional protections are
"ultimately a
reminder that the federal Constitution does not prohibit everything
that is intensely undesirable." (OK, that part about the soda can was
made up.)

The horror stories, though, are deadly serious:

* Innocent Florida salesman Richard Apfelbaum, flying to Las Vegas
with $9,640 in gambling money, had his cash seized by the DEA on the
theory that such a large sum must be related to illegal drug activity.
After posting the required 10 percent bond and spending $2,000 in
attorney's fees trying to get his money returned, Apfelbaum gave up,
noting ruefully, "I'm not in a position to spend $10,000 in legal
fees trying to get $9,000 back."

* During a futile drug raid, Los Angeles County deputies shot and
killed Donald Scott, the owner of a $5 million mountain ranch long
coveted by the Park Service. The Ventura County Attorney later found
that the raid was motivated by the desire to forfeit the ranch. The
raiding party included Park Service officers and two asset forfeiture
specialists carrying appraisal information.

* A California man traveling overseas had to go to the Supreme Court
to get back $357,144 seized by customs officials. The cash was not
tied to any crime

and was legal to take out of the country, but the man had failed to
report the transaction. Noting the maximum criminal penalty for the
offense was $5,000, the court overturned the seizure for being
"grossly disproportionate" to the man's conduct.

* The owners of numerous Phoenix convenience stores face the prospect
of their stores being forfeited, based upon the alleged sale of
excessive quantities of cold medicine to officers posing as
methamphetamine "cooks"

seeking raw materials. Since the stores merely sold legal products,
the Superior Court has dismissed criminal charges, but the forfeiture
threat remains.

The original concept that drug lords should be deprived of their ill-
gotten planes and yachts was a sound one. But civil forfeiture has
become, as Justice Thomas says, a "roulette wheel employed to raise
revenue from innocent but hapless owners." The federal government has
been collecting $350 million to $550 million a year spinning that
roulette wheel, with cooperating states and municipalities enjoying
about half the take. Rep. Henry Hyde has reported that 80 percent of
civil forfeitures involve people never charged with a crime. The
Justice Department claims the figure is closer to 50 percent - as if
that's acceptable.

Only Congress can revoke this license to steal. The last reform effort
fell short despite backing by groups ranging from the National Rifle
Association to the American Civil Liberties Union. If this Congress
doesn't fix it, the roulette wheel may stop on your number next.