Hyde Moves To Halt Property Seizures

After years of abuse and injustice, steps are under way in Congress to reform the laws that make it possible for authorities to seize property from persons who have committed no crime. Leading this effort is Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who sent a "Dear Colleague" letter urging other congressmen to become co-sponsors. Text of the letter follows:

Dear Colleague:

Over the last decade, our two-century old civil asset forfeiture laws have been recruited in the war against crime. the federal government is taking hundreds of million of dollars a year in proceeds from cash and property used in criminal activities. Unfortunately, it has become all too apparent in recent years that thee civil asset forfeiture laws are sometimes being used in terribly unjust ways, depriving innocent citizens of their property without basic due process. Believe it or not, Federal officials have the power to seize your home, your car, your business and your bank account -- all without indictment, hearing or trial.

Imagine this. You make the mistake of buying an airplane ticket with cash -- behavior that is deemed to fit a drug courier profile -- so you are detained and searched. No drugs are found, but the agents seize the case in your wallet saying they have "probable cause" to believe that the money was intended to buy drugs. You are allowed to leave and not charged with any crime, but the agents keep your property.

What recourse do you have to get your property back? Very little, because the law treats the property, rather than you, as the offending object. None of the Constitutional or procedural safeguards of the criminal laws are available because you are not being threatened with a deprivation of liberty. In fact, the law doesn't require that you ever be charged with a crime. Instead of the government having to prove that it had "probable cause" to believe that your seized property was being used in connection with a crime, it is up to you to prove it did not.

Your only other hope is to prove that your property was "innocent" of its alleged connection with a crime. But the alleged criminal conduct needn't even involve you -- it could just as easily be a crime allegedly committed by the previous owner of your property, or by someone who, unbeknownst to you, is using your property in a criminal endeavor.

And, if this weren't bad enough, you must provide a 10 percent bond for the privilege of even contesting the government's seizure. Don't expect to have an attorney provided to help you if you are indigent, but familiarize yourself with legal procedure quickly, you have only 10 days to file your claim. Even assuming you somehow prevail, the government is not liable for any interest on your money or, in the case of seized property, any damages caused by its handling or storage.

As unbelievable as all this seems, this is now the law! . . . It's incumbent on the Congress to reform the system to make it consistent with the basic presumption in American law -- that you are innocent until proven guilty, and that you should not lose your property without the process of law.

To this end, we will soon be introducing the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act. It puts the burden of proof back where it belongs -- on the government. And it requires the government to prove its case by clear and convincing evidence. It also provides indigent defendants with appointed counsel, allows property owners who take reasonable steps to prevent others from using their property in criminal activity to get their property back, eliminates the cost of bond requirement, provides compensation for damage caused to the property, extends the time for filing of a claim and sets a time certain for the government to commence judicial proceeding."

Signing the letter along with Hyde were Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), and Bob Barr (R-Ga.)

Jarret Wollstein, director of the International Society for Individual Liberties, cites press accounts of abuses including a seizure of $39,110 in cash, the proceeds of an insurance settlement and her life savings, from a woman in a Houston airport when a drug dog scratched at her luggage. No drugs were found, she wasn't charged, but police kept her money.

He noted a USA Today report that Washington, DC, police stop black men on the street and ``routinely confiscate" cash and jewelry.'' He recalls Dr. Joseph Disbrow, accused of practicing psychiatry without a license for providing counselling in his mother's New Jersey home although counselling doesn't require a license in New Jersey. Police seized over $60,000 in furniture, carpets and paintings from his mother's home.

According to the Pittsburgh Press, Wollstein continues, 80 percent of seizure victims are never charged with a crime. Law enforcement agencies often keep the best cars, watches and TVs sell the rest. In April 1990, he says, The Washington Post reported the US Marshals Service alone had over $1.4 billion in seized assets.

The April 1997 issue of the Small Property Owner newsletter, reported that Federal DEA agents shot and killed Donald Scott in his home during a raid that a court later ruled illegal and yielded no drugs. He had reportedly refused to sell his ranch to the National Park Service and NPS staff and forfeiture agents accompanied DEA agents on the raid.

Hyde's bill is not yet introduced and doesn't have a number.