Source: Orange County Register News Contact: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 URL: http://www.ocregister.com/liberty/1997/1097/102797/edit2.html A botched reform Over the past 15 years, the federal government has increased its power to seize property without a trial mostly to facilitate the "war" on drugs. In many cases, people only suspected of a crime, or charged but not yet convicted, lose their homes, savings and other property. And the laws place the burden of proof on the person whose property has been seized. In some instances, however, the person cannot financially mount a defense because the government has his assets. This power has grown despite the Fourth Amendment's protection of the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures... ." To fully restore that right, earlier this year Rep. Henry Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced H.R. 1835, the Civil Forfeiture Reform Act of 1997. The bill was a straightforward reform simply requiring the government to return seized property pending a trial. Unfortunately, after pressure by the Clinton administration, H.R. 1835 was modified and turned into a new bill, House Resolution 1965. The result is "a compromise that makes things worse than present law. It makes no sense," Barbara Grantland told us; she's vice president of Forfeiture Endangers American Rights (FEAR), a group that helped draft the original bill. "The Judiciary Committee let the Department of Justice rewrite the bill, and they just made a mockery of reform," she charged. H.R. 1965 puts a number of complicated conditions on the return of seized property to a suspect before trial. The property owner, for example, must have "sufficient ties to the community to provide assurance that the property will be available at the time of the trial." Or it must be determined that loss of the property represents a "hardship to the claimant, such as preventing the claimant from working, leaving the claimant homeless, or preventing the functioning of a business." The government itself, of course, determines whether the property owner meets these conditions. Another section of the bill, according to a report from the House Judiciary Committee, expands the scope of property that can be seized. "The bill provides that forfeitable proceeds are not limited to the `net' gain or profit realized from the commission of an offense. Rather, the `gross' proceeds are forfeitable." The report contends that the Eighth Amendment's protections against excessive fines "ensures that this remedy does not get out of hand." But a system of seizures that ignores the Fourth Amendment is unlikely to follow the Eighth. Rep. Hyde continues to support the new bill and hopes to bring it to the floor before Congress goes into recess Nov. 7, Rick Filkins, counsel to the Judiciary Committee, told us. "H.R. 1965 preserves all ... of chairman Hyde's core reforms," Filkins said, and it has "Department of Justice support, which we think is important to the ultimate success of the bill." The conditions added to the bill, however, have created a strangebedfellow coalition of opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Association, and even some Republican stalwarts who might otherwise be expected to support Mr. Hyde and the GOP leadership. Rep. Ed Royce of Fullerton, for example, who supported the original bill, is working to defeat H.R. 1965. "This is not the reform bill that the congressman thought Hyde would introduce," a spokesman for Rep. Royce told us. Let's hope enough congressmen of both parties follow Mr. Royce's lead and make sure H.R. 1965 disappears. True reform along the lines of the original bill will have to wait till 1998. (The Internet site for FEAR contains the text and specific criticisms of the bill: http://www.fear.org/ ) Eleanor and Alan Randell 1821 Knutsford Place Victoria, BC, Canada V8N 6E3 Email: Home 2507210356, Work (Alan) 2509522926