ASSET FORFEITURE

Guidelines for seizing property need to be tightened

The presumption of innocence is a treasured cornerstone of the American
justice system.

A notable and troubling exception to that has been the nation's civil asset
forfeiture laws, a sweeping crime-fighting tool that sometimes oversteps
constitutionally protected civil liberties.

The current statute gives law enforcement agencies the right to seize
property if police suspect it was used in the commission of a crime even if
the owner is not involved in a criminal activity. No arrest or charge is
needed to trigger the law. And to get the property back, the owner must
prove he had no knowledge it was being used for illegal activities.

In a free society, such latitude is troubling. Its crime-fighting intent is
noble and needed, but its sweeping potential for abuse needs to be checked.

Unfortunately, reform is bogged down in Washington turf battles, shifting
coalitions and divisions over the burden of proof.

U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde, D-Illinois, had proposed legislation that would
require the government to prove a tougher standard before seizing property.
But to quell Justice Department concerns that the law would handcuff
police, the House Judiciary Committee lowered the burden of proof to a less
rigid standard and expanded the scope of the forfeiture law.

Rep. Hyde has amended the compromise bill to restore his original wording
and recapture support from various civil liberty and conservative groups.
But the Republican leadership backs stronger asset forfeiture provisions in
a money laundering bill sponsored by Florida Rep. Bill McCollum.

The government's ability to seize property is an effective weapon against
drug dealers, terrorists and white-collar criminals. The government should
have the legal authority to strip criminals of ill-gotten profits within
the confines of due process.

Yet the law, which is used less today than in the past, remains overly
broad even though a series of court rulings have chipped away at its wide
reach.

Civil asset forfeiture should be made fair. The burden of proof belongs on
the government. The government should be liable for damages to wrongly
seized property, and should pay interest or damages if found to have acted
improperly. There must be safeguards to prevent innocent Americans from
being swept up in the process.

Checked-by: (Joel W. Johnson)