Seizure Law Abuse Must End

It’s bad enough that a few renegade law enforcement authorities take advantage of the innocent from time to time through illegal searches and seizures. It’s worse when the law explicitly allows these violations of basic civil rights. That is why it is important for Congress to approve HR 1658, the proposed Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 1999, sponsored by Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

By passing successive tough asset forfeiture laws since 1970, Congress has virtually given the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and other authorities a blank check to seize property of suspected drug law violators even though they might never actually be charged or convicted.

Anecdotal evidence abounds. One witness told the Judiciary Committee that agents seized $9,000 in cash he was carrying at the Nashville airport. He testified that he was targeted merely because he paid cash for his airline ticket and presumably fit the profile of a drug offender.

The cards are stacked against innocent victims. They have to prove the government was wrong in taking their property. And once the asset is finally returned, the government has no liability for any damage to it. A Las Vegas air charter pilot eventually had to pay the government $7,000 to get his plane back, only to discover that agents had caused an estimated $100,000 damage to the craft. The pilot was forced into bankruptcy.

Hyde’s bill would shift the burden of proof from the property owner to the government and allow an “innocent owner” defense for those persons who had no idea that their property might have been used in a drug transaction. In hardship cases, the victim could continue to use the property to make a living. Indigents would be entitled to a court-appointed attorney to pursue their claims.

The support for Hyde’s legislation is so overwhelming that the bill is backed by both the National Rifle Assn. and the American Civil Liberties Union. A close vote was expected in the House in June but the measure passed 375 to 48. Even so, it could face problems in the Senate. Senators should not fear that a vote for Hyde’s bill might be interpreted as being soft on drug dealers. This is a case where only justice will be served.