CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE
LEGISLATION PASSES CONGRESS
LEGISLATION SENT TO THE PRESIDENT
After an extensive and often rigorous debate, H.R. 1658, the 'Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000,' passed both the House and Senate. NAPO supported H.R. 1658, after a compromised agreement was reached between NAPO, other law enforcement groups, members of Congress, the Administration and the Department of Justice. The legislation passed the Senate with unanimous consent on March 27, 2000 and the House by voice vote on April 11, 2000. The legislation has been cleared for the White House and the President is expected to sign H.R. 1658 into law.
Congressman Henry Hyde (R-IL) originally introduced H.R. 1658 on May 4, 1999. The bill passed the House on June 28, 1999 and was opposed by NAPO, DOJ and other national law enforcement groups. The bill had gone too far in revamping civil asset forfeiture and would curtailed law enforcement's ability to seize property associated with criminal activity. In the Senate, NAPO had supported its companion bill, S. 1701, which was a much more favorable bill to law enforcement. S. 1701 was introduced by Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Strom Thurmond (R-SC) and Joseph Biden, Jr. (D-DE).
After intense negotiations, a compromise was reached between supporters of H.R. 1658 and S. 1701. The compromise legislation, which retained the bill number H.R. 1658, passed the Senate and then the House. Following are some of the highlights of H.R. 1658, the compromise version that passed Congress:
Currently, in order for law enforcement to seize property, it needs 'probable cause.' The original language in H.R. 1658 would have required that law enforcement prove by 'clear and convincing evidence' that the property was used in an illegal manner. This language shifted the burden of proof too far onto governmental agencies. S. 1701 raised the burden of proof from probable cause to 'preponderance of evidence,' which is the language that passed in the compromise version.
CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE
The original H.R. 1658 would have allowed any claimant to seek appointment of free, taxpayer-paid counsel. The language that passed Congress limits representation to indigent claimants whose primary residence is subject to forfeiture or to claimants already represented by court-appointed counsel in a related criminal case.
Many statutes authorize only civil forfeiture and not criminal forfeiture for numerous crimes. The original H.R. 1658 did not contain any provisions dealing with criminal forfeiture. The language that passed Congress makes criminal forfeiture available whenever civil forfeiture is allowed. This clarifies current criminal forfeiture procedures.
Under the original H.R. 1658, a claimant would have been entitled to the release of seized property, including cash, airplanes, and vehicles, pending trial upon demonstration of 'substantial hardship,' even if there was evidence that the property was used to commit a crime. The language that passed Congress excludes from such release contraband, cash, property to be used as evidence, property particularly suited for illegal activities or property likely to be used to commit additional crimes.
The original H.R. 1658 would maintain a loophole in the law allowing drug lords and other criminals to pass their illegal fortunes to their wives, children, friends, mistresses and business associates by classifying as 'innocent owners' anyone who receives otherwise forfeitable property through probate. The language that passed Congress closes this loophole.
The original H.R. 1658 would have allowed prisoners 11 years to reopen completed forfeitures. The legislation that passed Congress would reduce this period to five years and provides that if forfeiture is vacated, the government may commence new proceedings.
The original H.R. 1658 would have made all changes to civil forfeiture law apply retrospectively, including the burden of proof. The language that passed Congress makes all changes apply prospectively with the effective date delayed for 120 days.
REPEAL OF SOCIAL SECURITY EARNINGS LIMIT
PASSED INTO LAW
On April 7, 2000, the President signed into law H.R. 5 (Public Law 106-182), the 'Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act of 2000.' This legislation was introduced by Congressman Sam Johnson (R-TX), which amends Title II of the Social Security Act by eliminating the earnings test for individuals who have attained retirement age. The bill received bipartisan support, passing the Senate 100-0 and the House 419-0.
This law will repeal the penalty imposed on seniors who have reached legal retirement age and continue to work. Seniors between ages 65 and 69 who earned more than $17,000 lost $1 for every $3 earned above this threshold. It was estimated this year that 800,000 seniors would have received reduced monthly Social Security checks because of the earnings limit.
INSANITY AT ANTIOCH
Antioch College in Yellow Spring, OH has invited convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal to deliver the commencement address on April 29, 2000 via audiotape. Ironically, Antioch is still mourning the recent violent deaths of two students, Emily Eagen and Emily Howell, who were killed while abroad in Costa Rica.
Robert Devine, President of Antioch College, told the media that they have not had a protest over a speaker since 1965 when they invited the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. Suzie Sawyer, Executive Director of the Concerns of Police Survivors (COPS), has a simple response to Mr. Devine: Mumia Abu-Jamal is no Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King! Join NAPO in a letter writing campaign to President Devine, and let him know how disgusted you are by this slap in law enforcement's face! Send your letters to: Mr. Robert H. Devine, President, Antioch College, 795 Livermore Street, Yellow Spring, OH 45387 or via e-mail to: bdevine@antioch-college.edu.
NAPO PREPARES FOR LEGAL RIGHTS & LEGISLATIVE SEMINAR
MAY 10-12, 2000
WASHINGTON, DC
This is shaping up to be one of NAPO's most informative Legal Rights & Legislative Seminars yet! Topics will include:
- Justice Department Lawsuits Against Law Enforcement Agencies: Overview of DOJ Lawsuits and Consent Decrees and How You Can Protect Your Members
- The First Amendment: Does It Really Protect Officers' and Their Union Leaders' Exercise of Free Speech and Political Activities?
- Duty of Fair Representation: What Can Go Wrong and How to Protect Your Organization
- Police Officers' Bill Of Rights
- Public Pension Legislation
- Mandatory Social Security Legislation
- National Collective Bargaining Rights Legislation
Registration fee is $200 per person, which includes two Continental Breakfasts and the Legislative Awards Reception where we will present Congressional Awards to members of Congress. For more information and a brochure, contact NAPO today at (800) 322-NAPO, or visit our web site at www.napo.org
22nd ANNUAL CONVENTION & SEVENTH ANNUAL TOP COPS AWARDS® COMING IN AUGUST
The 22nd Annual Convention of the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) will be taking place August 3-8, 2000 at the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. As the Saturday night social event, NAPO will be presenting the Seventh Annual TOP COPS Awards® at the Warner Theatre in Washington, DC. This promises to be one of our most exciting conventions to date! Be sure to come and be a part of the Presidential endorsement process for Election Year 2000. For more information, contact the NAPO office at (800) 322-NAPO.
NAPO ANNOUNCES 2001 CONVENTION SITE
Mark your calendars! The 23rd Annual Convention of the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) will be taking place August 8-13, 2001 at the Hyatt Regency Monterey Resort & Conference Center in Monterey, CA.
ANNUAL PETE LAWER AWARD
Written nominations are now being accepted for the Annual Pete Lawer Award to be presented at the 22nd Annual Convention, August 3-8, 2000 in Washington, DC. The Pete Lawer Award is presented annually to a NAPO member (or members) who have shown outstanding dedication to law enforcement and NAPO during the preceding year. For more information, contact the NAPO office at (800) 322-NAPO.
NAPO'S NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' RIGHTS CENTER THANKED FOR WORK ON BRIEFS
The National Law Enforcement Officers' Rights Center (NLEORC) has been extremely busy over the course of 1999-2000. Recently, Detective Timothy Nolan of the Chicago Police Department contacted NLEORC to thank us and compliment us on our efforts in the U.S. Supreme Court case Illinois v. Wardlow. Detective Nolan was the officer who ran after the suspect in the case. The Court ruled in favor of NAPO's brief, continuing the authority of police to detain individuals who run away suspiciously.
NLEORC also received a letter of thanks from Irwin R. Kramer of Kramer & Associates in Owings Mills, MD. "On behalf of Captain Marlin Lee Mills and other law enforcement officers who repeatedly find themselves facing similar frustration with our judicial system, I thank you again for your tremendous assistance in this case," wrote Kramer. For this case, NLEORC wrote an amicus brief in support of First Amendment rights of law enforcement officers to keep their jobs when they express their political views or engage in political campaigns. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Captain Mills' Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.
POLICE-RESIDENT RATIO ANNOUNCED
The Bureau of Justice Statistics recently announced those cities with the highest police-resident ratio from the 50 largest cities in the United States. The following cities have the highest number of full-time officers per 10,000 residents. How does yours compare?
| Washington, DC |
67 |
| New York |
52 |
| Newark, NJ |
52 |
| Chicago |
49 |
| Philadelphia |
46 |
| St. Louis |
46 |
| Baltimore |
46 |
INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GAMES ANNOUNCED
The International Law Enforcement Games have been set for August 3-13, 2000 in Cocoa Beach, Florida. Norm Demers, Executive Director of the International Law Enforcement Games, hopes to promote stronger bonds between fellow law enforcement officers throughout the world through sports. For more information, contact Mr. Demers at (800) 354-3536.
|
|
