ed States in order to get his money back, and it wasn't until he had a trial; there was no attempt at settlement.

Mr. HYDE. How much money?

Mr. KOMIE. We are talking about $230,000.

Mr. HYDE. He was carrying it in cash?

Mr. KOMIE. Yes. Like Mr. Jones said, if you have cash you get a substantial discount when you buy a product. If you buy with cash, you don't have to pay the 3 percent the credit card companies charge, Americans want cash in their businesses and so they readily accept it.

But the Government has a different idea. They believe no American should carry cash, only a credit card. Once you have cash on yourself, you must justify it. Interestingly enough, there is no clerk of the circuit court in Illinois who will accept anything but cash; you can't get somebody out on bond without cash. So if someone is arrested on the way to the bond office to bail their child out and the money is attempted to be forfeited, that is the only way you can get them out of jail is with cash.

Mr. HYDE. We have heard testimony about testing of the money for suspicion of drugs and dogs sniffing it. Do you have any information on the prevalence of evidence that paper money, currency has been near drugs? I am told that almost all money has

some

Mr. KOMIE. I would refer you to the American Bar Association report that Ms. Reno's purse had been subjected to a dog sniff and it was discovered that the dog had an affinity for some of the money in her purse; so the prevalence of the contamination of the currency reaches as high as Ms. Reno's purse.

And from what I understand, based on the indications I have had, Mr. Angelos, a chemist with the Drug Enforcement Administration, has published a memorandum informing them that there is contamination on every one of the rollers in the Federal Reserve Banks of the United States, that as soon as the money is deposited in the Federal Reserve Bank or any member banks and goes through the roller system, the contamination is placed on other bills. So it is well known inside the Government, at any rate, that there is a contamination problem brought about by the bills running through the system themselves.

Mr. HYDE. So that is not a very efficacious way of determining whether their money has been involved in a drug transaction with this person?

Mr. KOMIE. Let me tell you, to law enforcement people it is a joke. They take the money to the bank and deposit it immediately. They don't even send it to the laboratory for testing.

As the gentleman to my left told you, his mother's money was evaporated into the banking system so a laboratory could never test the money. And that would be the key to proving innocence.

What happens if you have one bill in 300 that has some cocaine on it. Do you lose all other 299 bills because one bill is contaminated? That is the problem. Law enforcement agencies don't even take that seriously. I have never had a case they haven't deposited the money directly in the bank.

Mr. HYDE. Please proceed.

Mr. KOMIE. Lastly, there is Mr. Lombardo. Mr. Lombardo operated a pizza parlor in Chicago. He is an elderly gentleman. His life's work went into that pizza parlor. He was an immigrant. He didn't believe in banks.

A burglar by profession and drug addict claimed that stolen property was being sold on the back steps of the pizza parlor in the parking lot. The Chicago police got a warrant for the premises, found no stolen property, no drugs, but half a million dollars of Mr. Lombardo's lifetime savings sitting in a barrel in the back of the pizzeria in a boarded-up dumbwaiter, which was his bank.

They seized the money. Since they were Chicago police officers, it went straight to the Chicago Police Department, deposited immediately in a bank so that Mr. Lombardo had no opportunity to have the money tested.

They took the money off the premises to the police station where they claim a dog sniffed it. Other than that, they had no information at that time that this had anything to do with drugs whatso

ever.

Mr. Lombardo filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County a motion. to return his property. A judge heard that motion, but while the motion was pending, when the Chicago Police Department realized that they weren't going to be able to hold on to the money under the law, they petitioned the Drug Enforcement Administration and the IRS to come in and seize it. So a warrant was issued by a Federal magistrate under the forfeiture laws before the State court judge had finished his work on the case, ordering the seizure of the money.

There was a little problem the Government encountered, and that is, under the Federal law once a State court takes possession of the money, the Federal Government has to sit back and wait. They can come to court and litigate the ownership or they can bring their forfeiture petition in front of a State judge. Instead, they declined.

They waited until Mr. Lombardo had won his motion for return of property, and then obtained a court order from a Federal judge ordering Mr. Lombardo to bring the check-this is no longer the alleged offending money, this is the money from the clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL, which is coming out by check, to bring the check to the Federal building and voluntarily, via court order, hand it to the U.S. marshal for forfeiture.

The case proceeds, Mr. Lombardo never had a day in court. Not one witness has been heard from the witness stand. Not one witness set foot in the building. His half a million dollars was forfeited 2 weeks ago by a Federal judge granting summary judgment based on an affidavit of an IRS agent who heard vis-a-vis the informant who talked about the stolen property that turned out not to exist, that there was cocaine in a delivery truck out in back of the pizza parlor and that he stole the cocaine and used it and therefore he suspected drugs were being used at the pizza parlor.

Mr. HYDE. Was there proof that he knew of these transactions or that he consented to them?

Mr. KOMIE. Mr. Lombardo filed an affidavit in answer to the summary judgment saying that the money was never earned as a result of the narcotics business. But summary judgment was grant

ed because the burden of proof shifted to Mr. Lombardo to prove he was innocent and the Government by appearing in front of a magistrate, ex parte, no lawyer there representing Mr. Lombardo, that was sufficient to force the burden of proof on Mr. Lombardo to forfeit his money. The only way he is going to correct this is by going to an appellate court.

Mr. HYDE. It makes a joke of due process, doesn't it?

Mr. KOMIE. It makes the "d" so small you need a pair of glasses or a magnifier to see it.

Mr. HYDE. Is that your testimony?

Mr. KOMIE. I would like to summarize, Mr. Chairman, by saying that we want to help you and the members of this committee in any way, shape or form to bring about reform in an area where the American public is unaware, except by your efforts, by your book and the publication of the Pittsburgh Press, in an area where the American public is largely uninformed about how insensitive our courts are, in an area where there is no oversight of the people making the decisions, in an area where there has never been a Justice Department official fired for making a mistake.

This is an area where there needs to be oversight, there needs to be an active change in the law. And in our printed statement we have made a couple of suggestions; require delivery directly to the person who is going to be forfeited.

In one case, Mr. Bryant, he was walking through the Detroit Airport-and, by the way, you should know that the Government has a program of paying off ticket agents who work for the airlines a certain percentage of the forfeiture.

Anyone who shows up at the counter and pays cash, they immediately call the DEA Task Force and say someone just paid cash, this is the description of that person, grab them at the gate, and the task force goes to the gate. These people have their property taken and don't even get the letter delivered to them.

It is either published in USA Today, and 21 days thereafter the money is considered forfeited, or the land is considered forfeited, or the other opportunity is that they don't have to sign for the notice. There is no requirement in the law that there be a registered letter or summons issued to the person who is being forfeited.

Mr. HYDE. So the clock starts running on their statute of limitations, their 10 days, and they don't know it?

Mr. KOMIE. Right. In Mr. Bryant's case, he was walking through the Detroit Airport and they delivered the letter to his neighbor. The neighbor thought she was doing him a favor by picking up the letter and he didn't get it until after the 21 days had elapsed. And so he had to go to Federal court, obtain an order from a Federal judge setting aside the forfeiture, despite numerous attempts to get the mitigation of the Justice Department, to mitigate the forfeiture that had already entered and he even supplied a cost bond.

He had a postmarked envelope and a cost bond that he sent in. They lost it and wouldn't even allow him to replace it. It is a terrible situation. So we need to require registered mail or a summons. We need to require the Federal judges to hear motions to suppress and prohibit summary judgment.

Summary judgment in the current state of the law allows the Government to have the magistrate make the whole decision and

the individual coming to court has no chance against that decision because the two of them where not in the courtroom at the same time the decision is being made. So summary judgment needs to be prohibited in these types of cases.

We need to eliminate "contingent fee law enforcement" by requiring that these monies either go to alternatives to sentencing, alternatives to incarceration and drug programs so these people don't come back into the court system, the people who are charged with

crimes and convicted.

We need to leave to the States the question of the family farm. By allowing the local police when they get caught doing something wrong to call the Federal folks to bail them out is not good policy. The local circuit court judge should be in charge of what is going on in his own county and the marijuana-growing family farm should be left to the local State law and the issues raised by the ownership of the family farm by family members.

We think you should prohibit Federal courts from intervening once a State court has obtained jurisdiction of the property. The case books are replete with observations of sheriffs who once they realize that they are losing in State court immediately call up the Federal Government and have them come in and say, here, take the property to the Federal building, seize it and hand it over. And that is not limited to Illinois. It happens in other places.

Mr. HYDE. What happens to the proceeds that are seized? Why is law enforcement so zealous?

Mr. KOMIE. The answer to that is it turns out to be unappropriated expenditures for police departments. In other words, every government in the United States sits down every year and decides how much their budget is for what they do. So much of that goes to law enforcement. The chief of police has a budget that is accounted for. These moneys go back to whoever is responsible for bringing them to the attention of the Federal Government based on a formula. And when they get that money they don't have to answer to the city council, to the county board, or the State legislature.

Mr. HYDE. It is off budget?

Mr. KOMIE. It is off budget. That is why it is "contingent fee law enforcement." It is in addition to the budget. That tank that they wanted to buy last year to suppress civil disturbance, the county board said no, that is a waste of money, we have one civil disturbance once every 10 years; now they can buy the tank if that is what they want.

Mr. HYDE. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Komie follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN M. KOMIE, SECRETARY, ILLINOIS STATE Bar

ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Judiciary Committee, the Illinois State Bar Association is a private, voluntary association with more than 34,000 members and growing with each law school graduation. The Association has provided professional services to attorneys, referral services to the public, and education to attorneys, the judiciary, and the citizens of Illinois since 1877. We are the oldest bar association of practicing attorneys in Illinois. One of the touch stones of the Illinois State Bar Association is to advise the General Assembly in Illinois and the members of Congress on issues of public importance which bear upon the rights and liberties of the citizens of our great country.

In that regard, the Illinois Bar Association wishes to salute Chairman Henry J. Hyde for his leadership in tackling the issue of civil asset forfeiture. His book on the subject, "Forfeiting Our Property Rights," may be used as a manifesto of the importance of constitutional liberties, rights, and the rule of law. Chairman Hyde has been in the forefront of the debate over reform of a system run amok. We are especially proud of the fact that Illinois lawyers are a part of providing a solution to the terrible injustices resulting from civil asset forfeiture. With Chairman Hyde's leadership and followed by Representative Michael Patrick Flanagan, we are confident this Congress will succeed in providing necessary reform for the protection of the innocent.

Incidentally, Chairman Hyde has been an ISBA member for more than 37 years and practiced law in the community which elected him to Congress. He is uniquely suited to bring forth H.R. 1916 because he knows firsthand the treatment innocent persons receive in the federal court. Today we stand in support of Chairman Hyde's efforts and urge continuing reforms which surpass those currently set forth in the Bill. For that reason we wish to bring to your attention the episodes of victims of the zeal of contingent fee law enforcement. As you know, the framers of the Constitution were very mistrustful of placing power in the hands of government and were especially fearful of placing power in the bureaucracy. Our forefathers would be shocked to learn that a person's home and property could be forfeited by the bureaucrats with the blessings of the federal judiciary without a jury ever seeing a witness or hearing any testimony. In 1789, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have told you such a thing was unconstitutional. In fact, every person to whom the United States Congress has built a monument and school children are taught to revere would protest this affront to our fundamental Constitutional tenants. However, since 1970, modem Americans have been confronted with draconian forfeiture proceedings. We at the Illinois Bar Association, while supporting law enforcement, stand fast against civil asset forfeiture which fails to provide adequate protections for the innocent and the guilty alike.

All Americans agree that the family farm has been an historic institution since the founding of the republic. As members of the Committee know, family farms have remained a part of the social fabric, contributed to the agricultural might of America, and have acted as a stable social institution for over 250 years. Many Americans have left their farms to their children resulting in the operation of the farm by one brother or sister on behalf of the non-resident family members. In Illinois, for good reason, the Illinois General Assembly has never authorized the forfeiture of the family farm for growing marijuana. Obviously, marijuana could be grown on a large farm without the knowledge of the absent family members or could be grown by a child without the knowledge of his parents. Certainly, the family farm as an institution should be protected from seizure under those circumstances. Yet 21 U.S.C. 881 authorizes the seizure of real property regardless of the drug involved or the quantity of the drug. So a family farm may be seized and forfeited for less than 5 marijuana plants. This is ironic because the Midwest the federal government had encouraged the planting of hemp for the production of rope for liberty ships and for use by our Navy in World War II. Hence, marijuana grows without cultivation in many parts of the Midwest. Therefore, there are many good reasons why the family farm should not be forfeitable.

SEIZURE WITHOUT NOTICE

Steven and Suzanne Stout are joint owners of a parcel of property commonly referred to as 47 West 644 Route 30, Maple Park, Illinois. In actuality, this parcel is a family farm of which Steve Stout acquired a half interest as a gift from his father Paul. His sister, Holly Accardi, has lived on the family farm with her husband Greg and their three small sons. Steve Stout and his wife Suzanne, and their children live in Grand Rapids, Michigan. They would only come to the Accardi farm over the Christmas vacation and occasionally on Thanksgiving. During these times, they would sometimes hunt pheasant.

On September 15, 1992, members of the Illinois State Police raided the Accardi farm. During the course of the raid, they entered the Accardis' farm without consent to search or a search warrant and began to search the farm before they contacted any of the owners. On the day of the hearing for the motion to suppress evidence, the police of fleer produced an alleged consent to search form purportedly signed by Gregory Accardi. This form was not in the file of the Illinois State Police. The form was sent to the Springfield laboratory of the State Police. There, Jeanne Brundige, a handwriting expert, employed by the Illinois State Police found Mr. Accardi's signature was a forgery. Mr. Accardi so testified as did a privately retained handwriting expert. Mr. Steven Kane. As the police were certain there would be difficul