After horror tales, Congress rethinks propertyseizure laws

By Angie Cannon
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON Based on a tip that drug dealers unloaded cocaine on the
dock of a Florida waterfront house, federal agents seized the property.

It turned out that the owner of the $300,000 home had been out of the
country when a friend used the dock without his knowledge. But it took
Susan Davis, a Fort Lauderdale accountant overseeing the estate, three
years and $40,000 in legal fees to get the house back.

Willie Jones, a Nashville landscaper, has a horror tale of his own.
Several years ago, he bought a plane ticket to Houston with cash. That
made drug taskforce agents suspect he was a drug courier. They detained
him, searched his luggage, and seized the $9,600 he had in his wallet to
buy shrubbery.

No drugs were found, and Jones was not charged with any crime. Still,
he had to go to court to get the Drug Enforcement Agency to return his
money.

Cases such as these have prompted some members of Congress to try to
change what they call a ``Kafkaesque'' law that allows police to take
property they suspect is being used in criminal activities.
Lawenforcement officers and the Justice Department object to Congress'
efforts, saying the legislation would hinder their war on drugs.

But revisions have support from both Republicans and Democrats, and
action is likely this summer.

``Our civil assetseizure laws are being used in terribly unjust ways,
are depriving innocent citizens of their property with nothing that can
be called due process,'' said Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R., Ill.), chairman of
the House Judiciary Committee. ``This is wrong, and it must be
changed.''

Over the last decade, assetforfeiture laws have become one of the most
powerful and important lawenforcement weapons against drug dealers,
terrorists and whitecollar criminals. In the first quarter of this
year, the federal program yielded $110 million.

The laws work this way: Police agencies confiscate the property of
suspected drug dealers and other accused criminals, then sell them. The
proceeds are plowed back into policing.

The rub is that a person's property can be seized without notice or
hearing, based merely upon police having probable cause to believe that
the property has been ``involved'' in a crime. Neither the owner, nor
anyone else, needs to be charged. Once the property is seized, the
burden is on the owner who wants it back to prove the property's
innocence.

Every year, the federal government collects hundreds of millions of
dollars through the seizures, either in cash intended for drug buys or
from the sale of cars, boats and homes used by drug traffickers in their
business dealings.

Hyde and others say that they have no problem with the theory, but that
it has run amok in practice, with innocent property owners increasingly
victimized.

``I'm afraid the government's principal concern when it comes to
seizing money and assets is best summed up in an expression from a
recent popular movie: `Show me the money,' '' said Rep. John Conyers Jr.
(D., Mich.), a cosponsor of the legislation.

Stefan D. Cassella, who oversees asset forfeiture in the Justice
Department, acknowledges that there have been some unfair seizures but
says the laws are applied effectively most of the time.

He said 85 percent of the tens of thousands of annual forfeiture cases
are uncontested, often because the owner is in prison and is not going
to try to fight for his property. In 1995, he said, there were 33,000
contested seizures and 48 of them resulted in judgments against the
government.

``You will never be perfect,'' he said. ``But we think the laws work
well, and to the extent we can make them work more fairly, we will.''

Cassella said the Justice and Treasury Departments had developed new
guidelines for administering the laws, and as a result, criticism of the
program has dropped dramatically. In addition, the Supreme Court has
decided 10 forfeiture cases in the last five years, while lower courts
have ruled in hundreds of others.

Some of the decisions, Cassella said, have led to a drop in the money
going to the Asset Forfeiture Fund. In 1994, the federal government
collected about $550 million, compared with $338 million last year.
State and local police departments got $228 million of that in 1994,
compared with $163 million last year.

To Hyde and others, the big problem with ``civil'' forfeitures is that
the government considers ``the property'' the guilty party, not the
owner. The burden then falls upon the owner to prove that the property
is not guilty.

Hyde's bill would shift the burden of proof to the government. The
measure also would use some of the money from seized assets to appoint
lawyers for poor people who fight forfeitures. It would eliminate the 10
percent bond requirement for those fighting government seizures, and
permit property owners who try to prevent others from using their
property for illegal purposes to get it back.

To Susan Davis, the changes are greatly needed.

``I never had any clue that things like this could happen,'' she said.
``It's really an excessive amount of power they have.''