DPF
Alert:
Senator
Session's
Version
of
Civil
Asset
Forfeiture
Reform
Bill
Worse
than
Nothing;
Public
Action
Needed
10/15/99
(from the Drug Policy Foundation' Advocacy Network, http://www.dpf.org) Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a former federal prosecutor, introduced the "Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act" (S. 1701) on October 6. The bill, presented as a companion bill to Rep. Henry Hyde's (R-IL) "Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act" (H.R. 1658), is actually a substitute. It guts nearly all the reforms from the House bill and makes it easier for law enforcement to seize and keep private property. The Drug Policy Foundation recommends that you contact your Senators to urge them to oppose S. 1701 and to encourage them to introduce Rep. Hyde's bill in the Senate. Sessions introduced his bill with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) as the lead co-sponsor. Other cosponsors include Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC), Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE), Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA). The Department of Justice, the FBI, the DEA and numerous law enforcement organizations support Sessions' bill. A DPF analysis of S. 1701 finds that Session's bill does not adopt the reforms approved overwhelmingly in the House bill in June. Changes to forfeiture law in Sessions' bill, followed by comparison with the House bill, include: (1) Increasing the burden of proof the government must reach to seize property from probable cause to "a preponderance of the evidence." S. 1701 contains an "After-Acquired Evidence Exception" (also known as "Seize Now, Fish Later"), which would allow the government to seize and hold property without cause until trial, when only then would it have to "justify" its seizure; * The House bill would raise the burden to the higher standard of "clear and convincing evidence." It has no "Seize Now, Fish Later" provision. (2) Adding a property bond alternative to the existing cost bond required to contest a seizure; * The House bill would eliminate the need to post bond to contest a seizure. (3) Requiring the government to pay attorneys' fees in cases where an indigent claimant prevails; * The House bill unconditionally provides an attorney to indigent claimants. (4) Providing compensation in cases where seized property was damaged when damage was "the negligent result of unreasonable law enforcement actions"; and * The House bill gives property owners the right to sue law enforcement for damages done to property due to handling and storage of seized assets. There is no requirement that a claimant must prove that law enforcement negligently or unreasonably. (5) Providing limited release of property to avoid hardship. This release does not extend to cash, property that law enforcement deems to be evidence of a crime, property suited to use in a crime or likely to be used in another crime. DPF believes that this phrasing would mean that little or no hardship release would take place. * The House bill has no such conditions. Furthermore, the Sessions bill makes civil asset forfeiture law worse by violating financial privacy, including: (1) Allowing the government to request tax returns for use in civil cases in the same way it can request and use tax returns in criminal cases; and (2) Extending the time from one year to two years that the government is entitled to assume electronic funds in a bank account are fungible, and need not be traced directly to the alleged offense. Other crucial reforms in the House bill are missing from the Senate bill, such as providing prevailing property owners with compensatory interest in certain situations. WHAT'S NEXT DPF believes that S. 1701 will not be acted upon during this session of Congress, which gives those opposing the bill time to be heard. We expect hearings or markup on the bill to take place early next year. Sometime in early 2000 DPF expects the Senate Judiciary Committee or its Subcommittee on Crime to hold hearings or a markup on S. 1701. DPF also hopes that other Senators can be moved to introduce true reform legislation modeled on the Hyde bill before any hearings or markups. DPF believes that members of the Judiciary Committee should be especially targeted by their constituents. The following senators sit on Judiciary: Republicans: Orrin Hatch (Utah)Democrats: Patrick Leahy (Vermont)Independent: Bob Smith (New Hampshire)WHAT YOU CAN DO Call or Write Your Representative -- The Drug Policy Foundation is urging you to contact your senators and ask them to oppose S. 1701. Encourage them to introduce the Hyde bill, H.R. 1658, in the Senate. To Call Your Senator - Calling your senators is an easy way to make your views known to them.
The Honorable [name of your Senator]But be aware that letters sent by fax or snail mail and phone calls are still more effective than e-mail for registering your opinions with most elected representatives. Visit http://www.dpf.org/html/listform.html to subscribe to DPF's Advocacy Network by email or fax.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
