CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE REFORM ACT MONDAY, JULY 22, 1996 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Representatives Henry J. Hyde, George W. Gekas, Carlos J. Moorhead, Bob Barr, and Barney Frank. Also present: Alan F. Coffey, Jr., general counsel/staff director; Diana Schacht, deputy general counsel; Kenneth Prater, clerk; Stephanie Peters, minority counsel; and Melanie Sloan, minority counsel. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HYDE Mr. HYDE. The committee will come to order. Under our rules, it is permissible for purposes of hearings to proceed with less than a full complement, and while today is Monday morning and the House doesn't go into session until sometime later and votes later this afternoon, it is understandable that a lot of Members aren't present. But frankly, this subject is an important one, and because of the press of other calendar matters, we haven't gotten to it this year until this morning. And I am loath to forgo the opportunity to advance this legislation. So we are going to proceed with it, but I apologize for the paucity of Members, and I congratulate my friend George Gekas for his being here. Mr. GEKAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HYDE. The gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. GEKAS. Yes. I am eager to listen to the witnesses and to perhaps engage in a colloquy with one or more of them on this, like you say, important subject. I just wanted to lay a little background on the basis that this committee in the early 1980's, in furtherance of then President Reagan and then President Bush, and even more recently under President Clinton, we were considering this subject matter in one form or another. As a matter of fact, all the comprehensive crime plans which we have either contemplated or adopted in one way or another touched upon this subject, and I must say that you cannot have a comprehensive crime program unless you include forfeiture as one of the matters which you must consider thoroughly. I am eager to see where we have failed, where we can improve, what it really means to law enforcement, and, therefore, I join with (1) the chairman in moving ahead to make a record on this very important subject. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman. Those people in the room who are in the Navy will recognize the phrase, "now hear this." Well, now hear this: Federal and State officials have the power to seize your home, your car, your business and your bank account, all without indictment, hearing or trial. Regardless of sex, age, race or economic status, we are all potential victims of civil asset forfeiture procedures. Just ask Willie Jones, owner of a Nashville landscaping business. In 1991, he made the mistake of paying for an airplane ticket in cash-behavior that was deemed to fit a drug courier profile. Mr. Jones was detained. His luggage was searched. No drugs were found, but his wallet contained $9,600 in cash. The money was seized, but Mr. Jones was not charged with any crime. After 2 years of legal wrangling, his money was finally returned. In 1989, during a fruitless 7-hour search for drugs aboard Craig Kline's $24,000 new sailboat, Federal agents wielding axes, power drills and crowbars nearly destroyed the boat. No evidence of contraband was found. The boat was sold for scrap, and only after Congress intervened did Mr. Kline receive a reimbursement of $9,100, a third of the boat's value. Over the course of several years, Florida police routinely confiscated cash, an estimated $8 million total, from hundreds of motorists who supposedly fit profiles of drug couriers. Criminal charges were rarely filed in these cases, and only in three instances did the individuals successfully have funds returned. According to one estimate, in more than 80 percent of civil asset forfeiture cases, the property owner is not charged with a crime. Nevertheless, Government officials usually keep the seized property. Furthermore, to justify its seizure, the Government need only present evidence of what its agents see as "probable cause." That is the same standard required to obtain a search warrant, but in that situation, police are permitted to seek evidence of a crime, not to permanently take somebody's property. Even worse, under present law, the burden of proof is on the property owner, who must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her property has not been used in a criminal act or not otherwise forfeitable. The uncharged victim must prove the negative. The basic presumption in American law, you are innocent until proven guilty, has been turned on its head. Property owners who lease their apartments, cars or boats risk losing their property because of renters' conduct, conduct over which the actual owner has no control. To contest Government forfeiture, owners are allowed only a few days within which to file a claim and post a 10-percent cash bond based on the value of the property. Even if the owner is successful in getting the property returned, the government is not liable for any damage to the property which occurs while in the Government's possession. In 1992, former New York City Police Commissioner Patrick Murphy observed that the large monetary value of forfeitures has created a great temptation for State and local police departments to target assets rather than criminal activity. Now, let me stress, I view criminal asset forfeiture following a criminal conviction as an appropriate punishment. There, the guilty party has been accorded due process of law. But civil asset forfeiture all too often punishes innocent persons. These procedures may have made sense in the 18th century, when ships containing contraband or smuggled goods were seized, but in today's modern world, the targets of noncriminal forfeiture are residences, businesses and bank accounts. We need to reform these procedures so as to ensure fundamental fairness and due process rights. For these reasons, I have introduced the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, H.R. 1916. First and foremost, this legislation revives the notion that property, like individuals charged with crimes, is innocent until proven guilty. It allows property owners to recover for the damage done to property while in the custody of law enforcement agencies and protects innocent property owners, such as landlords, who are unaware of illegal activity. Further, the bill would eliminate the regressive cash bond now required of property owners who file an appeal in a seizure case and would extend the period of time for appeal of a seizure from the current 10 or 20 days to a more reasonable 30 days. The fifth amendment to our Constitution reads: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.' " Today this committee embarks on a path of reform that hopefully will comport Federal civil asset forfeiture law with the true spirit of the fifth amendment. [The bill, H.R. 1916, follows;] 104TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H. R. 1916 To reform certain statutes regarding civil asset forfeiture. I IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JUNE 22, 1995 Mr. HYDE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned A BILL To reform certain statutes regarding civil asset forfeiture. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 4 This Act may be cited as the "Civil Asset Forfeiture 5 Reform Act". 6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION OF CUSTOMS AND TAX EXEMPTION 7 8 UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS PROCEDURES. Section 2680(e) of title 28, United States Code, is 9 amended— 1 |