U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde won a round his six-year effort to reform the

civil asset forfeiture process which allows Federal agents to seize

property from persons who are not convicted or even accused of a crime.

Under Hyde's prodding, the House passed HR 1658 making modest reforms.

There is no corresponding bill in the Senate but the house bill passed

by such a large mnargin (375-48) its expected the Senate will have to

act.

In 1997, Hyde circulated a letter to House members explaining the

injustice of current law. Under current law, according to Hyde, Federal

agents need only claim to have probable cause to believe that the

property

was involved in crime. The owner of the property need not have committed

the crime or even be aware of it.

Hyde noted that probable cause is the minimal standard needed by

police

to justify a mere search.

Civil asset forfeiture, Hyde said, is not burdened by the due process

safeguards criminal defendants enjoy. The reason, he went on, is that the

owner of the property is not accused of a crime, instead, the government

uses the bizarre notion that the property itself is guilty.

Predictably, this has produced abuses. Hyde cited a few in his

letter.

Paying cash for an airline ticket, he said, fits a drug courier profile

So you can be stopped and searched. If no drugs are found, the agents can

still keep all the cash in your wallet claiming there is "probable cause"

to believe it was intended to buy drugs, a claim they don't have to

prove.

You won't be charged with a crime, but your money is gone and to get

it back you must sue. You must file suit within 10 days, pay for your

own attorney, and post a bond equal to ten percent of the value of the

property you're trying to retrieve. And when you do get to court, you

have to prove a negative -- that your property wasn't involved in a

crime.

Complicating that effort is the possibility your property actually was

involved in a crime and you don't know about it. Maybe you own a vacant

lot on the other side of town where junkies meet at night to deal drugs.

Police interrupt and the junkies flee leaving behind drugs -- on your

property. The dealers are home free, but you could lose your property.

The House Judiciary Committee while considering Hyde's bill, heard

testimony about a judge who ordered the return of half a million dollars

to a pizzeria owner in Chicago. The money was found at the restaurant and

seized by Federal agents without any evidence it was tainted in any way.

The judge reminded the agents that, "the government may not seize money,

even half a million dollars, based on its bare assumption that most

people do not have huge sums of money lying about, and if they do, they must be

involved in nar-ccotics trafficking or some other sinister activity."

Hyde's bill (HR-1658) contains eight modest reforms.

1. If a property owner challenges a seizure, the government must

prove by clear and convincing evidence that the property is "guilty." The bill

stops short of requiring the government to prove it before the property

is taken and as a matter of routine -- not waiting for a challenge. In some

cases the property owner may not know he has the right to challenge the

seizure.

2 The bill allows -- but does not require -- judges to order property

re-leased pending final resolution of the case if the owner would

otherwise suffer substantial hardship.

3 The bill allows judges to appoint counsel for poor persons

fighting to get their property back.

4. The bill removes the requirement that the property owner post a

10 per cent bond as a precondition to having his day in court.

5. It provides for a uniform innocent owner defense allowing

someone not guilty of a crime to keep his property. This will reverse recent

court rulings that the owner must be unaware of the crime to be held

innocent. Persons who know of a crime but attempt to prevent it will

also be included.

6. It allows a property owner to sue if property is destroyed while

in the government's possession.

7. It extend the time period during which a property owner may sue.

8. The bill awards interest to a property owner who recovers seized

money. The Clinton administration opposed the bill as did some congressmen who are former U.S. attorneys.