From: [REDACTED] at [thumper.galaxy] (Daniel Liebster,MRE 2N-275A,4797,,21493)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Drug Siezure News
Date: 15 Jun 93 22:47:23 GMT

^By LARRY MARGASAK=
^Associated Press Writer=
	   WASHINGTON (AP) _ U.S. Customs agents in Florida searched a
professor's new $24,000 sailboat for drugs. In seven hours, they
found nothing but damaged the boat so thoroughly, it had to be sold
for scrap.
	   A disabled Kentucky retiree was acquitted on state charges after
police found 500 marijuana plants on his farm, but he was forced to
pay the federal government $12,500 to get his confiscated property
back.
	   Conservative Rep. Henry J. Hyde cited these examples Tuesday, as
he proposed restrictions on government seizure of property in
suspected drug cases. In doing so, he teamed up with the liberal
American Civil Liberties Union.
	   The Illinois Republican told a news conference that money and
other property is being taken ``in terribly unjust ways'' under
civil law _ often from those never charged with drug crimes.
	   He introduced legislation to curtail this method of pursuing
drug profits and obtaining money for use by law enforcement
agencies.
	   Under current law, authorities only need to show ``probable
cause'' that property was used illegally in order to seize it. The
owner must then prove his or her innocence to get it back.
	   ACLU President Nadine Strossen joined Hyde at the news
conference to back his bill. But she also called civil forfeiture
unconstitutional and proposed its abolition, because the burden of
proof is on the defendant.
	   Hyde, who would not endorse abolition, said his bill would:
	   _Require the government to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that an asset was purchased with the profits of crime or
was used in committing a crime.
	   _Provide a lawyer for those who can't afford one but want to
challenge a civil forfeiture. Currently there is no right to
appointed counsel in these cases.
	   _Abolish the requirement that a property owner post bond to
contest a seizure.
	   _Clarify that lack of consent to illegal activity is a valid
defense to forfeiture.
	   ``Nothing less than the sanctity of private property is at stake
here,'' Hyde said. ``This is unjust; this is abusive, and it must
be addressed.''
	   Hyde said he might have a tough time selling fellow
conservatives on the need for the legislation, since the money from
seizures goes into a fund used for law enforcement which had $531
million in deposits last year.
	   But Strossen said no one can accuse Hyde, a strong backer of
anti-drug measures, of being soft on crime.
	   Strossen said civil forfeiture, used since 1984, ``has become a
nightmare for thousands of ordinary, law-abiding citizens'' who are
subject to ``Draconian property deprivations.''
	   Also backing the legislation was Nancy Hollander, president of
the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
	   She said authorities have focused their forfeitures on ``minor
participants and innocent people, not big drug dealers.''
	   Hollander said that forfeiture revenues ``have assumed an
indispensable role in law enforcement budgets, creating a situation
in which seizure targets are sometimes selected by the bounty
available to the enforcement agency ....''
	   AP-DS-06-15-93 1526EDT<

---


	Belts?Belts??? We don't need no stinkin' belts!

Dan Liebster  Bellcore  [REDACTED] at [silat.bellcore.com]  201.829.4797