Pubdate: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 Source: Orange County Register (CA) Copyright: 1999 The Orange County Register Contact: http://www.ocregister.com/ Section: Local News,page 6 SEIZING THE MOMENT ON UNFAIR SEIZURE LAW One of America's most essential liberties is the right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, which is enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately, a 1984 federal law allowed almost unlimited seizures of people's property without compensation and even without a finding of guilt in a court of law. But the tide has been changing. In 1994 the California Legislature passed a bill giving citizens greater protection against seizures. The bill was advanced by a coalition of liberals and conservatives, led by Democratic Sen. John Burton of San Francisco (now Senate president pro-tem) and then-Assemblyman Gil Ferguson of Newport Beach, a Republican. Now a similar reform is advancing through the U.S.Congress, sponsored by Republican Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois and supported by his usual opponent, Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts. House Resolution 1658: Shifts the burden of proof from the property owner to the government and from "a preponderance of evidence" to the more strict "clear and convincing evidence" that the property was used in a crime. Establishes an "innocent owner" defense in which someone - such as an apartment owner - who did not know his property was being used for a crime would be protected from a government property seizure. Allows property owners to use their property while a case is pending in court. Eliminates the requirement that an owner contesting an administrative seizure must put up $5,000 or 10 percent of the value (whichever is less) before the seizure can even be contested in court. Repays owners for damage to property while in federal custody. HR 1658 passed by a whopping 375-48 in the House in June and is pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee chairmen, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, "has not announced yet what he intends to do," said committee press secretary Jeanne Lopatto. "He is interested in it and knows something has to be done." California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's office told us that she is supporting a bill to be introduced next week by Republican Jeff Sessions of Georgia, her fellow member of the Judiciary Committee, because it doesn't go as far as the Hyde bill and has the support of law enforcement organizations. The wording of the Sessions bill hasn't been released yet, Sen. Sessions' press secretary John Cox told us. He explained, "It makes meaningful changes but doesn't go as far as the Hyde bill and has the support of law enforcement organizations. The wording of the Sessions bill hasn't been released yet, Sen. Sessions' press secretary John Cox told us. He explained, "It makes meaningful changes but doesn't go as far as the Hyde bill, which in Sen. Sessions' opinion goes too far in undermining the ability of the government to seize ill-gotten gains from criminals." The Sessions bill also has the support of the Clinton Justice Department. Depending on what the wording of the Sessions bill turns out to be, this could end up as a repeat of an effort earlier this decade by Rep. Hyde to pass asset-forfeiture reform. When the Clinton Justice Department forced changes in the wording, civil rights proponents ended up switching into opposition, defeating the bill. We fail to see what in the Hyde proposal could aid real criminals. Sen. Feinstein needs to check with state Sen.Burton on what the feelings on this bill are in her party. And in making his own decision, Sen. Hatch should ask rank-and-file Republicans what they think of asset forfeitures. We suspect he'll find strong support for the Hyde bill. Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer has not taken a position. HR 1658 should be passed unaltered by the Senate. Americans once again deserve to have restored their Fourth Amendment right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. - --- MAP posted-by: Derek Rea