The Hon. Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Harkin:
I am writing to follow up on the Civil Asset Forfeiture Hearing in the Criminal Justice Oversight Committee that happened last week. We are glad to see that the Senate is considering making changes to civil asset forfeiture law, which is in great need of reform. As you know, the House passed a bill, H.R. 1658, sponsored by Chairman Henry Hyde which incorporates a number of key reforms. We urge you to support this important piece of legislation. There was also a bill proposed by the Department of Justice and introduced by Representatives Hutchinson and Weiner. We did not support this bill because it did not go far enough to provide important and needed reforms.
Reforms are very important to eliminate some of the grave injustices that are happening in our country. Civil Forfeiture laws are used routinely against innocent citizens who are deprived of their property without due process of law. Without even charging a person with a crime, the government can take a person's property without a hearing. In order for the person to get his property back he or she must prove the property was "innocent", not used in any criminal activity. The owner has to post a bond worth 10% of the value of the property before he or she is entitled to contest the forfeiture, and the owner is not entitled to legal counsel. Ironically, persons charged in criminal cases are entitled to a hearing in court and the assistance of counsel. The government can avoid the requirement of due process by forfeiting property under civil laws without ever charging a person with a crime. The result is that an innocent person, or a person not charged with a crime, has fewer rights than the accused criminal.
The Hyde bill would address these grave injustices. For example, the bill includes a number of provisions that would begin the process of reforming current forfeiture law by requiring the government, rather than the property owner, to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the seized property was involved in a crime; eliminating the 10% cost bond provision that property owners are required to post in order to contest the forfeiture; providing legal assistance for indigent persons who have had property seized; and in cases of hardship, providing that property be returned to the owner pending disposition of the forfeiture proceedings.
The Department of Justice bill changes the b urden of proof from the individual to the government, but does not raise the standard of proof to clear and convincing evidence. The Department of Justice bill does not guarantee legal assistance for indigents. The Department of Justice bill does not permit return of property pending disposition in cases of hardship. Without these changes, current abuses will continue.
Unfortunately, forfeiture has become a means for law enforcement to fill its coffers with the proceeds of seized assets. State and local law enforcement agencies disregard state laws that direct the allocation of proceeds to schools or the general fund by handling the case under federal law. Law enforcement agencies keep the proceeds for themselves. This system encourages law enforcement to abuse forfeiture laws which have compromised relations between police and their community making law enforcement more difficult.
The attached memo has a sampling of forfeiture "horror stories" from around the country. H.R. 1658 will help reduce the number of horror stories and provide relief for persons who have had property unjustly taken from them.
We are also concerned about the connection between civil forfeiture law and racial profiling. Civil forfeiture takes place in a variety of situations where minority people are targeted by police because of racial profiling. Traffic stops, airport searches, and drug cases are all instances when the government routinely uses civil forfeiture laws. There is a body of research that establishes that minorities are disproportionately targeted in these cases. Many innocent persons who have been illegally stopped while travelling in their cars, or through airports, have had property seized when the only evidence of a crime was that the person was carrying a large amount of cash. Often, persons do not challenge these seizures because to do so would cost more than the value of the property seized.
Please do all that you can to support passage of H.R. 1658 or a similar forfeiture reform bill that contains meaningful, not superficial reforms. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue further.
Sincerely,
Rachel King
Legislative Counsel
Laura Murphy
Director, Washington National Office