chair: let me make a few reminders for members appearing in person. you will see persons appearing remotely on the monitor in front of you only when they are speaking. for members appearing remotely, you are all familiar with zoom right now. you will be able to see a person speaking in the hearing whether they are in person or remote if you set zoom to speaker view. if you have questions, contact staff. second, we have a timer that should be visible on your screen when you are in speaker view. house rules require we see you, so please keep your cameras turned on. for members appearing remotely who are not recognized, you should remain muted. if you are recognized verbally, you retain the right to be recognized verbally. if you want to be recognized outside regular order, you can use the chat function, send a request, send emailed to majority staff or unmute your mike to ask me directly for recognition. we prefer people not talking over each other, so please use the chat function or emailed to facilitate recognition. committee staff will lecture i am made aware of any requests right away. we will begin in a second, when they tell me they are ready to kick off the live stream. good morning, everybody out there in zoomland. thank you for joining us for this important hearing. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess of the committee at any time. i recognize myself for an opening statement. good morning. thank you to our witnesses for joining us into the members for dissipating in this critical hearing i want to thank ranking member congresswoman mace enter staff for coordinating today's hearing. this bipartisan hearing will be the first congress has held in nearly seven years focused on the need to reform use of our civil asset forfeiture laws. civil asset forfeiture is used widely by federal, state and local law enforcement to seize assets believed to be connected to criminal activity, either as an instrument of criminal activity or a proceed of criminal activity. law-enforcement can seize money, cars, boats, even homes and offices, keep the cash and sell the property to augment their agency budgets, automobile fleets, holiday funds, gymnastic facilities and other activities. because these laws often lack the bare minimum of due process protections, many of these operations are in fact trembling every major component of constitutional due process. law-enforcement agencies can seize and permanently deprive people of their assets without arresting them, much less charging them with a crime, much less convicting them. that is why we call this civil asset forfeiture laws, because the state is not going through the ordinary criminal process, sustaining the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt -- beyond a reasonable doubt someone is committing a crime. rather, property is just being seized and you don't have to prove by a reasonable doubt or even a preponderance of the evidence in court first that the property is somehow tainted by crime. you don't even have to charge the person. you don't even have to arrest the person. the state is just seizing the property. law-enforcement agents can seize and forfeit assets of innocent third-party owners, even if the person whose property is being seized had no knowledge that their property was being allegedly used in connection with a suspected crime. under this system, a grandmother's car or a parent's apartments can be seized if police suspect that the grandchild or child is possessing drugs or committing some other criminal offense on the property. that is an outrageous breach of the most basic concepts of civil justice, due process and property rights. and too often, these seizures become permanent, even if charges are never brought against a person whose assets are seized, even if criminal charges are never even brought, it can be virtually impossible to recover your property. civil asset forfeiture's flip the constitutional standards of a citizen's presumption of innocence, and the government burden to prove guilt. on their head. just flip it over and thus deprive people of their due process rights. in most cases, law enforcement can seize and keep the property using a very low evidentiary burden, even if it does get to court, even if the person whose property is seized does go to court, finds a lawyer, even then, the lowest evidentiary burden of reasonable suspicion of crime is what is often used, and hearsay is often used. conversely, the property owner must be the one who goes to court to prove their assets are not connected to a crime, or that they had no knowledge that they were connected to a crime. your property, in essence, is presumed guilty. and this is a scandalous inversion of due process. because these are several rather than criminal actions, poor americans caught up in this process have no right to appointed counsel. civil forfeiture proceedings are below will during late -- are bewilderingly complex for laypeople, and the value of seized assets is often less than it would cost to hire an attorney, in the case of someone just having a small lament of money taken from them on the street, for example. as a result, civil asset forfeiture's are rarely challenged and successful challenges are very rare. meanwhile, law enforcement agencies keep the proceeds from forfeited assets, leading to massive windfalls in some police department or sheriffs department budgets. this is true even in states that have abolished civil asset for forger -- civil asset forfeiture, because of a massive loophole called the adoption and equitable sharing programs. under these programs, seizures made by state and local law enforcement can be adopted by a federal agency for forfeiture and then come up to 80% of those revenues can be equitably shared and returned to the seizing agency. this creates a perverse profit incentive, because law enforcement agencies can keep the revenues from forfeitures with little if any oversight as to how the money is being spent. in 2018, federal and state law enforcement seized and forfeited more than $2 billion worth of cash and assets from americans, using these prophecies. from 2000 to 2018, state and federal agencies obtained more than $68.8 billion forfeitures. despite these massive sums, high-value forfeitures remain the exception, not the rule. most seizure of cash and cars are a quite low values and are taken from people primarily living in communities of color in low-income areas. between 2015 and 2019, the average forfeiture amount under state law was 1200 $76 per incident. in several states, the median amount forfeited is far less. half of all forfeitures in michigan were less than $423 in a two-year period, and in pennsylvania, less than 306 t nine dollars and 2018. moreover, numerous studies reflect that communities of color are disproportionately affected. between 2012-2018, or than half of the forfeitures in philadelphia came in four low-income, black and latino majority incomes. 65% of people targeted for forfeiture in south carolina were african-american men despite their making up just 13% of the state population. in 2016, the aclu of california studied and found 85% of equitable sharing payments went to law enforcement agencies serving in majority minority immunities. we can't have an honest conversation about civil asset forfeiture without acknowledging its connection to greater issues of the targeting of communities of color by law enforcement in particular. in 2015, then attorney general holder issued an order that curbed federal adoptions to a limited degree and pivoted equitable sharing revenues from eating spent on militarized equipment. even though these limitations were applied narrowly, they were rescinded by attorney general sessions it 2017. it is time for the doj to reinstate the protections provided by the eric holder memorandum and conduct review of its civil forfeiture program to make sure basic rights are protected. but this is not enough. we need lasting legislative reform. thankfully, there is near universal recognition now that civil asset forfeiture practices are rife with abuse and ripe for book form. since 2013, 36 states and d.c. have taken steps to reform and maine, nebraska, north carolina have eliminated it entirely, but these efforts are undermined by federal equitable sharing, which is an and run around and we need to deal with it by passing sweeping reforms contained in the fair act we will discuss. congress must act to ensure lasting reforms to federal civil asset forfeiture programs. i am proud to be the lead democratic cosponsor of hr 2857 along with congressman tim walberg of minnesota. this bill will raise the level of proof required by the government to keep a forfeiture to clear and convincing evidence. it will require revenues to be deposited in the general treasury fund rather than being returned to state and local law enforcement agencies. i am pleased as well any of my colleagues on this committee have joint mr. wahlberg and me in sponsoring this bill. this is our congress should be operating in the interest of protecting the rights of all americans, rather than engaging in our constant habits of partisan invective. i hope we can continue working together to confront this mostly invisible but still egregiously outrageous injustice that civil asset forfeiture imposes on so many americans. i look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses. i recognize my steam drinking member miss mace for her opening statement. representative mace: thank you for holding today's hearing on a question that could not be more important to the american people are fundamental to our identity as founded in our constitution and the ability of people to be secure in their property. in the case of civil asset forfeiture, there is no requirement the property owner be convicted of a crime, let alone charged. i want to quote my hometown newspaper, "the charleston post and courier." i worked on civil asset forfeiture as a state lawmaker before coming to congress. today, this is an important hearing. the post and cure -- and courier and greenville news investigated and law enforcement agencies were incentivized to seize assets, sometimes without filing charges and putting people in the legally backward position of having to prove their innocence to get their property back, the opposite of what the constitution would require. the post and courier also stated that the greenville news looked at seizures and $17.6 million in assets taken over three years in south carolina. in eight cases of those 3200, -- in 800 cases of those 3200, no criminal charges were filed and in another 800 cases there were no convictions. the series also found roughly two thirds of seized assets came from lack men -- from black man, calling into question whether the law was fairly applied. this disproportionately affects communities of color and those who are poor, who are unfairly treated in these cases. the writers of the declaration of independence held these truths to be inalienable, the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. our constitution guarantees those rights. the fifth amendment prohibits the government from depriving people of life, liberty and property without due process of law and in sony cases, that is not happening. the 14th amendment prohibits states from depriving any person of property without due process of law. civil asset forfeiture often create an end run around due process, acts -- a seize first, ask questions later approaches. we do want to prevent criminals from enjoying property they derive from illegal activity, but asset forfeiture is a sound means of ensuring criminals do not benefit from the proceeds of their crimes and defendants should be proven guilty. civil asset forfeiture is an action against property owners and those whose assets have been seized have no guaranteed to an attorney to navigate a costly and expensive legal proceeding that usually cannot afford to contest the forfeiture in a proceeding in which the government has a very low burden of roof. it often costs more for an attorney that seized assets are worth, leaving many forfeiture actions to go untested. many innocent activities have led to authorities seizing assets which are often very difficult to get back through any forfeiture proceeding. small business owners have been wrongly accused of the practice of withdrawing less than $10,000 to avoid bank reporting laws, even though there are a number of reasons to deposit $5,000 in a bank. those affected have had their bank accounts sees, tying up their operating capital for months if not years in legal proceedings without ever being charged with a crime. others had their life savings confiscated the government merely for carrying large amounts of cash, again without being charged. a report by the institute of justice shows the median cash seizure and states is only $1300, well below the amount of money it would cost to hire an attorney to contest the forfeiture. this is a real problem, one congress should consider reforming, which is why we are doing this today. there are commonsense reforms we could all get behind to restore the constitutional guarantee of due process, as outlined by the german this morning. it should be easier for litigants navigating themselves to contest forfeiture actions, and to guarantee their right to a quick hearing for which the government must show cause for why their property was seized. we should consider whether it is proper for funds to be given directly to authorities to seize to the first place instead of the treasury, if not returned to victims. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. thank you for sharing your knowledge and expertise and personal experiences about this issue across the country, and what we could and should be doing in congress to solve it. thank you. chair: thank you for those lucid remarks. i want to introduce our witnesses and swear them in. our first witness is dan alban, director of the national initiative to end forfeiture abuse at the institute of justice. i, like miss mace, worked on this problem when i was in annapolis as a state senator. we will hear from malinda harris of springfield, massachusetts, a victim of civil asset forfeiture. you're going to hear from professor louis rulli, professor of law and director of the civil asset clinic at the university of pennsylvania carry law school. we will also hear from aamra ahmad, senior policy counselor at the aclu. witnesses will stand so we can swear them in. please raise your right hands. do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? all right, let the record show the witnesses answered in the affirmative. your written statements are going to be made part of the record. you are recognized with mr. five minutes. mr. alban: thank you, mr. chairman and members of this committee for the opportunity to testify about the urgent need for civil asset forfeiture reform. i'm the codirector of our national initiative to end civil forfeiture abuse. we are a national, nonprofit public interest law firm. for 30 years, we have litigated cases nationwide on behalf of individuals whose rights have been violated by the government, we have been litigating in civil forfeiture cases since the 1990's that are currently litigating over a dozen across the country. we have conducted extensive research on the use of civil forfeiture nationwide and published numerous studies, including three editions of policing with profit, the only comprehensive study on civil for -- civil forfeiture laws in all 50 states. we published multiple studies based on federal data that found civil forfeiture is ineffective at fighting crime, but is used to generate more revenue when there are budget shortfalls. those findings highlight why civil forfeiture is a national disgrace. it is not just right for abuse -- ripe for abuse, it is abusive. civil forfeiture laws pose widespread threats to civil liberties and property rights and distort and pervert law-enforcement properties away from solving crimes toward raising revenues. civil forfeiture turns the presumption of innocence on its head and effectively permits the government to punish someone for a crime without convicting them of that crime. that is not just deeply unjust, it is un-american. but civil forfeiture continues because law enforcement has a strong financial incentive to use it -- it gets to keep the money. up to 100% of forfeited money goes to funds controlled entirely by law enforcement would level oversight by congress, state legislatures or city councils. that not only violates the separation of powers, it distorts law enforcement priorities, incentivizing policing for-profit. but with civil forfeiture, the vast majority done under federal law is civil in nature. from 2000-20 19, civil forfeiture is made up 85% of all forfeitures done by seo -- by doj agencies in 90% of forfeitures done by treasury agencies. 69 billion dollars was seized and forfeited nationwide and the government paid 9 billion dollars to state and local law enforcement agencies through the equitable sharing program. while forfeiture generates massive amounts of money for law enforcement, the size of the typical forfeiture is modest. the median doj agency forfeiture is $2019. half of doj currency forfeitures are under $12,000. the median currency forfeiture by treasury agency is $3720. these figures indicate forfeiture targets everyday people more often than drug kingpins. even worse, the federal system involves a complex set of procedures that is nearly impossible for a layman to navigate. we prepared an info graphic that demonstrates the incredible complexity of the federal process and tom anyways there are to lose a civil forfeiture case, but very few ways to win. congress must act to fix this injustice. congress should eliminate the profits incentive by diverting all forfeiture proceeds to the general fund. law enforcement should not control the money it forfeits. all spending should be done through normal appropriations and subject to legislative oversight. second, congress should abolish the federal equitable sharing program which drives abuse. equitable sharing allows state law enforcement to circumvent state law by sending the forfeitures to the feds. equitable sharing should be abolished to preserve federalism and let state an act greater protections available under federal law. third, congress should eliminate the forfeiture process that makes it extremely difficult for property owners to contest a forfeiture. property owners deserve their day in a real court with a neutral, article three judge. they should not lose their property because the seizing agency makes a self-serving determination that it was right to seize and forfeit their property. finally, civil forfeiture should be replaced by criminal forfeiture. until forfeiture is limited to criminal matters, the government will continue to punish people for alleged unlawful activity without convicting them. that is contrary to the american system of justice. thank you. chair: thank you for your excellent testimony. ms. harris, you are recognized for five minutes. ms. harris: i would like to thank the committee for inviting me to testify about what happened to me, and to give me a voice. my name is malinda harris, 61 years old, single-parent, born in springfield, south carolina and currently reside in massachusetts. chair: what you make sure you speak directly into your microphone or as close as you can get? we don't want to miss any of your important boards. ms. harris: is that better? great. in 2015, my son was coming off vacation and asked if i could pick him up at the airport. i did so, return to home and he asked if i could borrow -- if he could borrow my car. he dropped me off and at 10:30 that night, i got a phone call from him. i could tell something was wrong. he told me were to pick up my car up. -- got my car. when i went to pick up my car, as soon as i put my hand on the door handle, 5, 6 police officers came from out of nowhere. one had his hand on his holster, and they told me they were going to seize my car because it was suspected of being involved in criminal activity. and i am like, i don't know what you are talking about, this is my car. they didn't want to hear it, they told me if i didn't give them the keys, they told me the car might be damaged, but whether i gave them the keys are not, the car was coming with them. they had no warrant, i never got any paperwork, a receipt for my car, they told me they were taking my car and that is what they did. the next day, i went to the police station to find out how to get my car back and they would not give me any information. they said it was part of an ongoing investigation. that was pretty much that. fast-forward, i think it was 2020, i got a letter in the mail stating they were going to keep the car unless i answered to them. i called to find out what needed to be done. they told me i needed a lawyer. i couldn't afford a lawyer at the time, and i needed to answer. they gave me 23 days and by the time the letter got to me, i had like two weeks. i couldn't, with the pandemic going on, you couldn't get a legal aid, so i was kind of stuck again. i was trying to get more time. i contacted the das office to see if i could get more time and they basically told me i needed a lawyer, for more time to get a lawyer. it was a very difficult time and if it wasn't for the goldwater institute taking my case pro bono, i would not have gotten my car back. they did a great job and i was able to get the car back and was able to give it to my daughter when she graduated. forfeiture was very stressful. my son was killed a 2018, heard -- murdered, so my thoughts world over the place. it was a very difficult time. and then, the goldwater institute. my car was returned, i gave it to my granddaughter. and why i think this reform is important is for all the reasons that were already stated, because i don't think foley's should be allowed to police for profit. and they should have a better burden of proof eerie dead if they are going to do it, they should be held accountable for how the money is spent. and i think it should go back into the community from where it was taken, and to some good there, as opposed to lavish parties and trips to wherever. i thank you for allowing me to share my story and i truly hope this bill passes because i think it is very important. chair: thank you for your wonderful testimony. we are very sorry to hear about the loss of your son. enter iq for joining us and sharing your story. prof. rulli, you are recognized for your five minutes of testimony. prof. rulli: thank you. i appreciate the offer to testify and commend that committee for holding this important hearing. at the pennsylvania law school -- at the university of pennsylvania law school, we have represented people in civil forfeiture proceedings for 20 years, our work highlighted by a cover story in "the new yorker" magazine entitled taken. we were introduced to civil forfeiture 20 years ago when a 77-year-old black homeowner who had end-stage renal disease was served with a petition for forfeiture of her home. she was never charged, never suspected of criminal activity. it had to do with a neighborhood boy unrelated to her. nonetheless, prosecutors sought to take her home. i remember distinctly her saying something to me that many clients say to me over 20 years, and that was, why is the government trying to take my home when i didn't do anything wrong? "the new yorker" article was about our representation of mary and leon adams, an african-american couple in philadelphia. prosecutors brought a civil forfeiture against their own because their adult son was engaged in small marijuana sales to a confidential informant. it had nothing to do with mary and leon adams. they were 68 and 70 years of age, law-abiding citizens who had never been charged with a crime in their life, nor were they charged or suspected of criminal activity here. it was all related to their adult son. nonetheless, prosecutors sought to take their home. recently, a local judge called me seeking representation for a 14-year-old high school student who resided with his mother in a home he inherited from his grandfather. the student's father did not live with them, but allegedly was involved in low-level drug sales two miles from the property. nonetheless, never charged with criminal activity, neither mom nor the student, prosecutors filed a civil forfeiture action to take the student's home. civil forfeiture is not just about homes, it is about cash and cars. the police confiscated a piggy bank longing to our clients's young doctor when they searched her home. they never charged her with criminal activity. she wasn't involved in anything. the piggy bank contained the girl's birthday money totaling $91. prosecutors refused to give back that piggy bank to her daughter. these cases ended favorably only because there was free legal representation. a 70-year-old widow had both her home and her car seized by police and forfeited, putting her on the street at age 70, only to have, years later, the pennsylvania supreme court finally rule in her favor. let's be clear -- for the decade between 2005-2014, prosecutors in philadelphia forfeited 746 homes, 1938 cars, $34.2 million cash. that is just one city alone. reform of civil forfeiture is long overdue. we must enact a right to counsel. the high rate of default judgments is intolerable in our justice system. prosecutors are not being held accountable for the claims they bring, and these matters are too complex to handle on your own. we must put a stop to the low cash forfeitures that make it infeasible to hire a lawyer to represent you tickets or cash back, and we must make sure that low-income individuals have legal help when they need it most. the burden of proof is way too low. it does not protect property owners for erroneous deprivation of their property. and we must boost data tracking and address the racial disparity in civil forfeiture. we know, and we did studies in philadelphia, that low-income families and families of color are disproportionately affected by civil forfeiture. this must end, and it will land if we begin to eliminate the financial incentive to law enforcement that drives persistent abuses. i thank you all, i think this committee for this important work. that's it done. chair: thank you, prof. rulli, for your powerful testimony and for being a credit to law enforcement officers everywhere with the work you have done in the city of philadelphia. we turn now to miss ahmad. miss ahmad: good morning. my name is aamra ahmad. i am pleased to be here to discuss the need for civil asset forfeiture reform and to pass the reform act. the aclu has been a guardian to defend our civil rights and liberties. the aclu believes there are three fundamental flaws with civil asset forfeiture laws. they violate due process. second, the disparately impact people of color and low-income people and third, they create perverse profit motives for law enforcement and allow agencies to augment their budgets without legislative oversight. civil asset forfeiture has been championed by law enforcement as a powerful weapon to fight the failed war on drugs, seizing assets of major traffickers at repurpose and those assets to fund law enforcement initiatives. between 2000-2014, deposits into the doj asset forfeiture fund increased tenfold. far greater than billions in proceeds is the price people pay their homes, businesses, cash and cars are unjustly teased. civil asset forfeiture disproportionately impacts communities of color. in east texas in 2007, police pulled over a biracial couple and their children. when police learned they were carrying $6,000 in cash as they were en route to buying a new car, they threatened to charge them with money laundering and put their children in foster care if they did not hand over the cash. the man and woman were never arrested or charged with a crime. the seized assets were used to enrich the prosecutors and officers themselves. in 2008, the aclu filed a lawsuit on behalf of the couple and other drivers targeted by the scheme. it was discovered that between 2006-2008, police in east texas seized re-million dollars from at least 140 people, all people of color. numerous studies show east texas is not an outlier. 13% of south carolina residents are black man, but 65% of cash caesars are from black men. in one florida county, 90% of cash seat from drivers without arrest were black or latino. in new jersey, eight of 10 cities with the highest seizures were also the poorest in the state. the government does not report data on race of owners subject to federal forfeiture, but "the washington post" found the majority of those people were people of color. when the deal ga inspector general examined it dea cash seizures, only 34% were related to criminal investigation. the report cautioned forfeitures that cannot be linked to forfeiture activity, law enforcement risks the reality it is more interested in seizing cash than advancing investigation. even the former prosecutors who built the doj asset forfeiture program in the 1980's have said civil forfeiture has run amok and that policing for profit must end. the doj equitable sharing program has a loophole for state and local agencies to sidestep state performs to the tune of over $6 billion between 2000-2016. due to racial disparities and lack of due process, the aclu believes federal civil asset forfeiture should be abolished. we also support the following five steps that can be taken immediately. first, pass the fair act. it would shift the burden of proof to the government, raise the standard of proof to clear and convincing evidence, and direct doj forfeiture proceeds to the general fund subject to congressional appropriation. second, congress should and federal administrative forfeitures. they lack judicial oversight and are used in 80%-90 8% of cases but third, members should conduct oversight of the sharing program and demand doj prevent purchases of military equipment and forms of wasteful spending. fourth, property and orders should receive counsel if they can't afford it. finally, congress should establish basic accountability standards by reporting when seizures are related to criminal investigations, and the wraith and death the city of property owners. i appreciate your leadership on this at the opportunity for the aclu to participate. i look forward to your questions. chair: thank you. i recognize myself for five minutes for questions. i want to submit for the record this very helpful document that mr. alban brought, demonstrating how civil asset forfeiture works at the federal level. i recognize myself for questions. ms. harris, what happened when your car got seized? did you have another car? ms. harris: no, i did not. i relied on public transportation. chair: how long were you without a car before you got your car back, and you were one of the lucky ones because you found legal representation, but what was the interval? ms. harris: it was probably five years of asking. chair: how long were you going on public transportation without a car? ms. harris: about a year and a half. chair: and then you got your car back, how did you end up with a different car? ms. harris: i was able to get my car back because i was put in touch with the goldwater institute. they do forfeitures and they do pro bono work. i was very fortunate to be connected with them. chair: so, when you got your car back, it was working ok? ms. harris: i had to spend $2000 to get it where it needed to be to be drivable and whatnot. chair: thank you. mr. alban, we went through this in maryland and we dramatically reformed our process when we learned of these outrageous abuses, but i think both of you and miss ahmad have ventured, why do we need civil asset forfeiture? criminal forfeiture says, if we think you are involved in drug dealing, you are charged, indicted, prosecuted, if you are found guilty, at that point, the criminal forfeiture process cakes and. use -- process kicks in. you say, we don't need law enforcement just keeping people's property for them, whether cash, condos, there is way too much ever that takes place in the violation of third-party rights is terrible. but also, i assume you are raising the rights of even people who might go on to be convicted criminally. but do we lose something if we were to abolish civil asset forfeiture? i am thinking of this, one officer testified and said, it is 2:00 in the morning and we don't want to bring somebody in and charge them, and they are standing on a corner with a wad of cash, we just grabbed the cash, they learned their lesson and we get the money. what is wrong with that? >> what is wrong with that is that mere suspicion is not sufficient to punish someone as though they have committed a crime. under the american criminal justice system, we believe people should be innocent until proven guilty, and should not be punished until they are proven guilty. civil forfeiture permits law-enforcement enforcement to seize property from people on mere suspicion, never secure the conduction and say, well, we know that guy is guilty even though that is never proven in a court of law. chair: and it risks the corruption of the law enforcement officers who are doing the seizing, and the departments, right? >> it does. it creates a strong incentive for law enforcement agencies to devote more resources to things like highway interdiction or airport interdiction and that takes away from resources they have for preventing and solving crimes. there have been a number of studies that have shown civil forfeiture is ineffective at fighting crime, any fact that lowering drug use rates, but is effective at raising revenue. but that is not a valid reason for taking property away from people without a criminal conviction. chair: would you talk us through what the older policy was, how well that worked, is it time to reinstated, and should it be expand -- reinstate it, and should it be expanded? >> the holder policy addressed one aspect of the federal equitable asset sharing program. there are adopted seizures and task force seizures. test for seizures make up 80% of federal sharing, adoptive seizures make up 20%. the holder program suspended use of adoptive seizures, suspended about 20% of the equitable sharing program without approval from very high up in the justice department. that prevented state and local agencies from asking federal agencies to adopt their seizures and then processed through them through the federal asset forfeiture system. i think it would be good to establish the holder policy but the entire program should be suspended. congress could simply pass a law making equitable sharing something that is not allowed. chair: what about the task force site? -- side? >> the task force side was unaddressed by the holder policy, so the vast majority of equitable sharing continued while the holder policy was any fact. it was a good first step, but did not the equitable sharing loophole. chair: should we look at performing the task force side as well? >> yes, absolutely. the entire equitable sharing program poses the same problems, same threats to federalism, and allows local and state law enforcement to sidestep state law requirements by ending their seizures to the feds. chair: it incentivizes an end run around policies adopted by state governments? >> that is right, and many states adopted laws that are much more protective of property rights than the federal system, or said money received through forfeiture has to go to a school fund or general fund. but the federal equitable sharing program circumvents those requirements and allows state and local law enforcement to directly receive the federal money. chair: state laws are being circumvented by a federal policy in order to violate the civil rights and civil liberties of people. thank you. miss mace. representative mace: i would like to enter into the record this editorial by "the charleston post and courier? about property being seized without charges. i thought i was on the fair act, apparently i am not, so you can add one more republican to that bipartisan bill. chair: great news. without objection. representative mace: ms. harris, thank you for sharing your personal story. it takes courage and we thank you for being here. going through everything you went through, from losing your son to losing her vehicle, my first question goes to you. were you ever charged with a crime? ms. harris: i was never charged with a crime, i was never accused of a crime. they told me to hand over the keys, or they would hold me accountable also. representative mace: i think many americans would be surprised and shocked to hear that your car, assets, house, could be seized without being charged, let alone convicted. what impact did losing your car have on you? ms. harris: it was the middle of winter. i was on public transportation in the middle of winter. i had to grocery shop, everything had to be done on the bus system, and it was not a pleasant or easy thing to do, but you do what you have to. another thing i want to state that is very important, not only did they take my car, they kept my car for five years before they even started any form of forfeiture, and i didn't hear anything about that car for five years. that is a long time. representative mace: you testified that you went six and a half vehicle -- 6 -- years without a vehicle. thank you for sharing that. i would like to talk to mr. alban, and also thank the goldwater institute for stepping up to help you, ms. harris. can you give examples, mr. alban, of innocent activities that your clients have been involved in that led to property being seized by a civil asset forfeiture, where they were never charged with a crime? mr. alban: usually, the activity people are engaged in is traveling, either driving or flying. i representative john dillon -- represented a gentleman from new orleans, a mental scrapper and was the shoeshine man at the roosevelt hotel in new orleans. he and his son lost their jobs because of covid and were looking to provide for themselves by expanding their mental scrapping business. they needed a second truck, so mr. warren located a truck that fit his specifications in ohio, flew to ohio, decided it wasn't what they needed, and on his way back was stopped at the airport by the dea and had the 20,180 dollars that he had with him to buy the tow truck seized from him. that was his life savings. it left him destitute for over a year. the seizure happened last november. he finally got his money back just before thanksgiving this year, over a year later. he was never charged with any crime, nor was his son, and his money has been fully returned, but his life was miserable for a year because dea suspected a black man flying through an airport with $20,000 must be up to no good. that is one of many, many examples. i would provide others, but i don't want to take up your time. representative mace: how to we diss incentivize this behavior -- disincentivize this behavior? mr. alban: it is critical we separate financial incentives so law-enforcement doesn't benefit from the seizures. the dea officers that stopped mr. warren and took money from him, they don't put that money in their pockets, but you better believe they get promotions based on how much money they see, they get the value based on how much money they cease because they are part of the airport introduction program and that program exists to take money from travelers. we need to end those programs and the best way is to make sure money taken through civil forfeiture goes to the general fund, not doj's asset forfeiture fund of the treasury forfeiture fund, which are funds controlled and spent by law enforcement. that drives abuse. representative mace: when my kids were toddlers, i bought my first minivan for $14,000 and showed up with cash, not thinking of the consequences. i yelled back. chair: i knew of another case like this where an older, chinese-american gentleman saved up around $40,000 to purchase a restaurant. and he was driving to louisiana and got stopped and the money was seized. it took him many years to get the money back. miss wasserman schultz, you are recognized. representative wasserman schultz : thank you. civil asset forfeiture creates perverse incentives for law enforcement agencies who stand to benefit financially from seizures. property may be sold, proceeds cap, and in some states, law enforcement is authorized to keep 100 percent of forfeited proceeds, a massive windfall. in the vast majority of jurisdictions, forfeited assets don't go into a state general fund for the well-being of all citizens, it goes to the seizing law-enforcement agencies to spend however they want, with few or no strings attached. mr. alban, can you talk about the financial benefits as emotive for civil asset seizures? mr. alban: first of all, you can simply look at the time graph of federal civil forfeitures over time, after the law was passed in 1984, the comprehensive crime control act, permitting law enforcement to keep the proceeds of the civil forfeitures. after that, civil forfeitures went up dramatically. the most salientof this, was inn outside of nashville. in the drug interdiction world, money and drugs are viewed as moving in different directions. drugs are viewed as moving south to north and west to east, from the borders to the population centers on the east coast, and the money is viewed as moving in the opposite direction, east to west and north to south, back to the borders where the drugs are coming in, cartels, smuggling and that sort of thing. out sort of nashville, this task force, funded almost entirely by civil forfeiture proceeds, was operating 90% of the time on the westbound side of the freeway, beside the money would be moving on, and the local news channel there investigated it using their traffic copters and an undercover investigation and found that 90% of the time they were operating on the money side of the freeway rather than the drug side. if you are trying to prevent drug trafficking, you should operate on that side, because you prevent drugs from getting to the east coast and there will be no money coming back, but that was the fundamental problem. there would be no money coming back, and if there was no money coming back, this drug task force would not be able to exist, because it was funded almost entirely from civil forfeiture proceeds, so that's one of many examples out there. >> submit this report to the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> what tangible steps can the federal government take now to remove the profit motive associated with civil asset forfeiture? and i would also like to ask dr. alban, if both of you could answer, the question about the role law enforcement plays in supporting civil forfeiture reform even though it is clear those reforms are necessary. >> i will go first. thank you for that question. we have seen on the local level how powerfully the financial incentive for law enforcement operates and, in pennsylvania for example, 100% of the funds go directly to law enforcement, to the people making the decisions as to whether or not to seek forfeiture. and we have watched as the prosecutor's offices grow -- prosecutors offices grow and they spend money on things unrelated to the safety of our citizens, so we must to direct funds away from these forfeiture funds and directly to the treasury, where there is general accountability, more transparency, where we have a sense of exactly the data underneath all these forfeitures. what are they for, who is being impacted by the, how is the money being spent, are people being charged with a crime or not, and our experience on the local level has confirmed all the things that have been discussed here today, that reform is desperately needed. >> would it be ok if the other question was answered quickly? >> yeah. was that addressed to him? >> yes. >> i would be happy to address that. law enforcement likes to say they are only enforcing the laws and don't make laws, but the secret of forfeiture reform is the only entity opposed is law enforcement and it is a powerful lobby. i have personal experience with reform efforts in states like missouri, where there has been widespread bipartisan support for forfeiture reform, eliminating the equitable sharing loophole, and prosecutors and individuals from st. charles county, which profits substantially from civil forfeiture, come in and lobby key legislators and basically say you do not want to look soft on crime. you will be taking money out of law enforcement's pockets and we will make you pay for that politically, and that sort of process repeats itself all around the country when there are forfeiture reform efforts. they are almost always bipartisan, supported nearly unanimously, and yet law enforcement opposes these efforts because they view it as taking money out of their pockets, and that's the primary obstacle that people who want to reform civil forfeiture law face, that law enforcement is a powerful lobby, able to affect how things happen in the judiciary process and in judicial committees, where these bills are typically before. they can get a bill so it is not heard, simply table, and -- simply tabled, and you can have bills with widespread support go nowhere because of law enforcement. >> thank you. you are now recognized for your five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. i am grateful that you are having this hearing. this is an important topic and our witness has kind of connected up the intersection between state law and federal law and asset forfeiture. it infringes upon americans to process and property rights. civil forfeiture has been used to confiscate innocent americans property. i will go off script here for a second. i carpooled with one of our prosecutors, who was a civil asset forfeiture attorney. we would say, how can you take this person's property? first of all, you did not even charge them. they were never charged with a crime. second of all, the standard of proof is so low. how can it be? so that was a state law in arizona, and so arizona has actually done some reform, much-needed, long-overdue reform. so i want to ask -- if i can, deconstruct or delink for a moment. my question is for you initially. how extensive is the civil asset forfeiture system? i want to know how much money, the value of the assets we are seizing in our federal police apparatus, prosecutorial apparatus, every year. do we know? >> it varies by year, congressman. approximately $2 billion to $3 billion in recent years. from 2000 to 2019, of that figure i mentioned earlier, 45.7 billion dollars of that went into federal forfeiture funds, forfeited by federal agencies or through federal equitable sharing. >> and so when we look at this, the argument from my police officer friends is we are using it to curtail crime. is there any evidence, scientific data, statistical data, that indicates that we have seen a reduction in crime in certain areas because of the civil asset forfeiture laws? >> there is not. the studies indicate the opposite. a study that was done on new mexico, which abolished civil forfeiture in 2015, found that, after it was abolished, there was no increase in crime rates, both in new mexico and compared to neighboring counties of other states. >> can you share that study with members of the community -- the committee? >> absolutely. it is in our report. we have two other reports, one looking at federal equitable sharing data and the data from five states that may data available comparing forfeiture rates to crime rates, which found no correlation in terms of increases in forfeiture reducing crime or drug use. >> so there may be other variables affecting crime rates is what you are suggesting. >> lots. civil forfeiture is not one of them. rep. biggs: the other argument is that the victims -- our system is not designed -- you know, designed to restore victims. we do it very inefficiently. we tend to punish first and rehabilitate -- not rehabilitate, but reimburse victims last. what is the result? do we have any data indicating that civil asset forfeiture is going to benefit or restore victims and make them whole? >> the evidence that we have, congressman, is that a tiny percentage -- rep. biggs: what would that be? teeny tiny does not suffice. mr. alban: i would have to get back on the specific number but i believe it is 5% or 6%. rep. biggs: if you could get that for us, that would be helpful. i think the first thing -- the other thing is, as we talk about the standard of proof, the number of cases that don't even get litigated here because the value, what's the average value, something like $1300 of assets seized. the cost to litigate that is at least twice that in my own experience. it would cost you far more than you would get. is that accurate? mr. alban: yes. at the state level, the median forfeiture is about $1000. rep. biggs: what is it at the federal level? mr. alban: at the federal level, for doj agencies, $12,090, and for treasury agencies, $7,300. rep. biggs: my time is expired. thank you for holding this hearing. >> appreciated. mr. kelly, i come to you for your five minutes. >> thank you, chairman raskin, and the ranking member. due process is central to our justice system. the current process of civil forfeiture violates this right and disproportionately affects people of color. a policy meant to target drug kingpins and criminal organizations has instead been used by police department as an extra revenue stream, targeting people on their way to buy a car . it is unacceptable. congress passed the civil asset forfeiture reform act with the intent of implement in due process protections for people facing forfeitures. unfortunately, over the last 20 years, civil asset forfeiture regimes have proved the act has not worked. as i mentioned, the act was intended to provide due process protections for people facing civil asset forfeiture's, but those -- asset forfeitures, but those protections have not worked in a meaningful way. >> sure, well, i think it is helpful to compare civil forfeiture to criminal forfeiture and what happens in criminal court. under criminal forfeiture, the person has a presumption of innocence. they have to be, the government has to be proving that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. in civil court, we have an archaic legal fiction that a piece of property can be a defendant. because it is a piece of property, it doesn't have rights . it does not have a right to counsel, the production -- the presumption of innocence. the property is presumed guilty. the individual has to prove their innocence. so the kinds of protections we need for property owners is to put the burden of proof on the government to raise the burden of proof from preponderance of evidence. right now, the government just has to prove a nexus to the crime and the person. these changes would level the playing field. rep. >> percentage of forfeitures involving black and latino communities reflect excessive targeting of those communities by law enforcement. how can we hope to craft reforms? because that is what we are interested in on this committee. that will reduce the disparate impacts of these practices? >> we need oversight and accountability and transparency. >> oversight at the state level or federal? >> at the state and federal because those numbers you mentioned about california, those are all federal dollars taken through the equitable sharing program, the department of justice's, and spent on california agencies policing communities of color, so there needs to be reporting on the race and ethnicity of people subject to seizures. we need more information. the information we have so far is from independent organizations like the aclu or journalists like the green bull in south carolina collecting this data. we need that information and congress can mandate that be reported. we also need information about the effectiveness of these seizures. for example, in my written testimony, i talk about a 2000 17 report from the inspector general's office at the doj that reviewed eric carefully -- reviewed very carefully a number of seizures by the dea, and found they and probably other agencies do not track whether seizures are related to a criminal investigation or prosecution, and the inspector general noted that, when that happens, there's a question as to whether this is crime-fighting or about seizing assets. so if we had that information and transparency, that would give congress the ability to conduct that oversight. we also need do process, so right now -- need due process, so right now, law-enforcement is the judge, jury and prosecutor when assets are seized. law enforcement decides when there is probable cause to seize assets. and no one participates in the system. the property owner cannot participate for months. there should be an opportunity to -- sorry. >> i have never heard of -- in this country. one more question, though, for the professor. i am interested in whether reforms can take place and what happens. after philadelphia reformed its civil asset forfeiture practices, did you see a shift in how communities of color were targeted? professor? >> there are many things happening, many moving parts here, and this is a complex question and i thank you for that question. first, let me just say that we cannot separate civil forfeiture from criminal justice reform that is ongoing, and there's a direct relationship here that we need to examine and we need as reported. also, in minority communities, many families don't have a bank account, meaning that they are carrying cash because that is the way that they are able to deal with -- you know, the various needs they have, and so the suspicion that the mere carrying of cash is somehow illegal or related to drugs is a fundamental issue that is targeted, really, in low income and minority communities. we have seen this throughout pennsylvania, but particularly in urban centers like philadelphia. now, there have been reforms, but as you have already heard, there were much more extensive reforms originally planned. i testified in the senate judiciary committee that we could have much more greatly revamped our state laws, but behind my testimony was the testimony of elected district attorneys across the state -- attorneys from across the state who represent a powerful lobby, stymieing reforms that could have taken place. we have a new district attorney who has greatly curtailed civil forfeiture. the press has spotlighted the abuses of forfeiture and its impact on low income and minority communities. the institute for justice brought litigation with local people that was very successful. our pennsylvania supreme court issued a decision that was critical, and we have not talked about excessive fines protection, but the other -- protection, but that's another area that's utilized, and we have had some changes to pennsylvania law, like elevating the burden of proof to clear and convincing all -- convincing evidence, so these things are helping, but this is a problem largely in low income and minority communities. >> the lady's time is expired. i recognize mr. clyburn for questioning. >> thank you, chairman raskin and ranking member mace, for allowing me to join the discussion today that is very much a personal interest of mine, making civil forfeiture reforms. it is of interest because i myself was a victim of civil asset forfeiture. i had my assets seized by the internal revenue service without warning and without ever being charged with a crime. i think we have heard that a lot today. without ever being charged with a crime. how on earth does the irs or any other government agency have the power to seize one's property without charging a person with a crime mark should not -- crime? it should not. but the irs has been confiscating money across the country through civil asset forfeiture. they were accusing people of structuring their legally earned cash deposits. in my case, the irs offered me a deal to get back two thirds of the $940,000 of my legally earned money if i would forfeit one third to them as a penalty. they wanted me to voluntarily forfeit 300 when he $5,000, even though they admitted in writing that all the money was legally earned and properly reported. this is nothing short of extortion, and i refused. they threatened me with criminal prosecution to get a civil monetary settlement, which is a violation of legal ethics, and again, i refused because i had done nothing wrong. long story short, i thought the eye -- short, i fought the irs in court and had my own money returned, but it cost me. many americans don't have the ability or resources to take on the government, especially the irs, and they wound up losing their businesses and livelihoods. i found myself on the opposite side of this dais in 2015. johnson sat beside me. testify against the irs and their corrupt methods in a congressional hearing. my testimony before congress resulted in the introduction of individual enactment of the respect act, ensuring individuals and small businesses are protected from unlawful cash seizures by the irs for restructuring. those protections were a great start and i am thrilled to be here to learn more about how we can further reform our civil asset forfeiture law so we are protecting the due process rights of all americans from being trampled on by all federal agencies, not just the irs. i was excited to learn about the chairman's bill when he introduced it, the fair act, and i wholeheartedly supported its goals and policy. civil asset forfeiture knows no partisan bounds, no ethnic bounds, as no person is immune to it. we can and we must do better, so i wanted to use this opportunity to commend the chair's work on this bill and for holding today's hearing shining a light on the perverse incentives of civil asset forfeiture. when aspect i am interested in working on, which the fair act looks to do, is bolstering the reporting requirements and data tracking of assets seized so we can know whether civil forfeiture is being applied fairly. in fact, one witness brought up the issue of needing more transparency in his testimony, and i find this important, mr. chairman, because eventually i would like to see every individual wronged by civil asset forfeiture made whole again. so, a question for you. recognizing that we need better data and reporting to right the wrongs moving forward, is there an avenue by which we could simultaneously look to retroactively right these wrongs? while i was fortunate enough to get my assets back, too many people have thrown up their hands and succumbed to the abuse. they just want it to go away. that's all they want. i realize there is no civil -- no silver bullet to achieve the outcome i desire, but is there anyway we could help these individuals? thank you. >> thank you for that question and your testimony here in -- it is so powerful. i would just add that so many of the clients who we had were in similar situations, were prosecuted, and they said, we will give you 50% back and we will keep the other 50%, basically extortion. that is why transparency and data is important. we have to provide remedies for those whose property has been taken and we have to know exactly what is happening. i get calls all the time from reporters saying they are having difficulty getting access to the data, certainly at the state level, and that requires right to know requests, freedom of information requests, great delay, great objections, but without basis. so, yes, i think the fair act can take a major step forward in providing requirements that are canceled -- that are carefully tailored to the abuses we have seen so we can get on top of the information we need not only to prevent the future abuses, but to determine who has been abused, who has had their property wrongfully taken, and how we can provide a remedy for them. this is a very important part of this legislation and i support it completely. >> thank you. mr. chairman, if i may, i would appreciate the opportunity to work with you on that, that issue. >> by all means, thank you for that participation, mr. clyde. we welcome it and appreciate your excellent and revealing comments today. i was thinking about -- you were talking about the shakedown, the extortion of one third of your money when you had not done anything wrong, and they were conceding it. saint august -- saint augustine says that government without justice becomes a band of robbers. we don't want the police to be mimicking the tactics of thieves from the street. thank you. next, to the congresswoman for her five minutes of questioning. >> thank you. ed thank you -- and thank you. civil asset forfeiture has been a major issue in my district. in 2017 alone, 400 of my residents in my district, without being charged with a crime, lost their vehicle. they did not have some of the resources that my colleagues have here. this was life-changing for them. the operation targeted disadvantaged communities, involving officers stopping individuals and seizing vehicles if they suspected, not proved, suspected they had been involved in a crime. i find it outrageous that a vehicle can be -- outrageous. a vehicle can be a lifeline. residents who wanted to challenge this forfeiture could expect the process to take months or years. naturally, they could also pay a $900 "settlement fee," basically a legalized bribe, in my view, for the return of their property. all the proceeds went to the police department. if anyone else was doing this, it would be called extortion. civil asset forfeiture does not significantly reduce crime or improve policing capabilities. a recent study by the institute for justice that looked at data from five states, including my own, found no evidence that forfeiture proceeds help police fight crime, whether in terms of solving crimes or reducing drug use. mr. albin, from the report, this table showed that this has no significant impact on drug use. can you summarize this table and the meaning for my colleagues on the effectiveness on civil asset forfeiture -- effectiveness of civil effort forfeiture? -- civil asset forfeiture? >> it looked at specific categories of drug use, including marijuana, nonmedical prescription drugs, cocaine, and found no correlation between increases or decreases in the use of civil forfeiture and increases or decreases in drug use rates of the various categories specified in that table. >> next, the effect of forfeiture on clearances, the number of crimes solved by police. can you walk us through its meaning? >> there was no associated correlation between increases or decreases in the use of civil forfeiture and on crime. however, there was an inverse relationship between crime clearance rates and the use of civil forfeiture, and so what this table shows is that when you diver law enforcement priorities to things like highway interdiction or community interdiction programs, where you stop people on the street and take their money, instead of actually solving violent crime, you end up with lower crime clearance rates, which should not be a goal. >> thank you for that. >> again, it brings us back to this is about process. it is about due process, involving a judge as a neutral arbiter, and oversight, accountability. if a town in georgia of 30,000 spends over $200,000 on an armored truck using federal equitable sharing proceeds, the question is, were stakeholders involved? this happened in a black box. others in the town may have wanted to spend that differently. if we can bring transparency to the process and if we can remove the profit motive by directing proceeds to a general fund controlled by a legislative body in a public and open manner, that would make a tremendous difference. >> i think a lot of us, and that is something my colleagues and i all agree about, transparency. so thank you for being part of this process and thank you to ms. harris, who shared her story. it is important to remember that there are people behind these processes and if people don't get it right, it is life altering for them. >> thank you. ms. pressley, you are recognized for your five minutes. there you go. >> thank you, chairman raskin, for convening today's hearing. civil asset forfeiture laws have been weaponized by police and prosecutors, disproportionately targeted against black and brown communities for too long. these policies amount to little more than legalized theft, and are used to increase police budgets and dole out bonuses. without reform, civil asset forfeiture laws will continue to exact hurt and harm at the expense of innocent people across our country. in massachusetts, the state i call home -- it is no exception. in 2018, massachusetts made $36 million in revenue from civil asset forfeitures because it has an extremely low standard for seizure. the state has no transparency on who it is taking money and profit from and less accountability to ensure unlawful seizures are returned. ms. harris knows about this all too well. we appreciate how you shared your story in which your car was impounded for five years. it breaks my heart to learn about the hardships and trauma you experienced. my heart swells that your resiliency and ability, as elijah cummings often said, to turn your pain into purpose. i want to give you an opportunity to add to your -- to add to your opening remarks, such as what was going through your mind when this happened? >> can you hear me? >> yes. ok. because my voice gets small sometimes. i felt like i didn't have any resources. i didn't have any money so nobody wanted to talk to me. and i just really thought the car was just gone. i see it all my time -- all the time in my community. this was not unusual. people were telling me, it is just lost. i just moved on to what was next, and that was employment in the place to live, those things, more important. it is like i said, i had just said, ok, that is gone, because this is what happens all the time where i live. it is not unusual for that to happen. >> thank you for that. can you tell us what did it mean to have your car returned to you after having written it off as gone after more than five years? what was it like and how did it improve your life? >> my son was murdered -- being able to get the car back and to give it to his oldest daughter was tremendous. that is a legacy for travis, for his daughter to have something. so it was tremendous, uplifting, and it showed -- and in our community sometimes, it is hard to see that the law works for us, and for that to come back and to get the car, my granddaughters no that -- granddaughters know that this system, we are included in this system it it works. so she was able to see that the law does work when somebody puts in effort to make it happen and that was something. >> thank you. you are modeling the fact that the arc of justice has to be -- you have to bend it, and so thank you for so -- for sharing your story. although it is from massachusetts, the policy of civil asset forfeiture is nationwide, as evidenced by the testimony we have heard today. professor, as the director of a law school working on civil asset forfeiture, how does the loss of a car or money affect your clients? >> it is devastating>>. it is painful. it renders -- it tears families apart. but thought of being put out on the street -- i mean, most of our clients, their homes are paid up. many of them were of elderly age and facing difficult health problems, and to have this kind of pressure on them, the loss of their home or their cars, which they needed for medical appointments, for all kinds of things that were critical to their well-being, just was inflicting enormous pain, and to think that their own government was doing it to them when they had done nothing wrong. >> and to that point, professor, o the injusticen the experienced -- professor, injustice happened quickly about the process to return their property to them was slow. can you talk about navigating that process of getting one's property returned? >> as you have heard, it is complex and lengthy. the example that i gave of the piggy bank, for example, which was just $91, but was really important, took us 12 court appointments over more than a year just to get that money back for that child. the home forfeitures, on average, i would say lasted about three years. so this, even though those who succeeded, this was weighing over their heads for that long period of time, and that really is terrible. >> and just to get a sense of just how many people we are talking about who experience this thievery, really, can you tell us roughly how many people whose property is seized through asset forfeiture has actually committed any type of crime? >> the gentlelady's time is expired but you may answer that question. >> our experience is the overwhelming majority of our clients were never accused and certainly not convicted of any crime at all. really, there is so much taking based upon suspicion that is not proven in the courts. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for your questioning. mr. davis, you are recognized for your five minutes now. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a very informative hearing. tremendous information and insights have been given. you know, there are some who would argue that there have been positive developments by the courts to rein in civil asset forfeiture, specifically the u.s. supreme court held in one case that the excessive fines clause of the eighth amendment was applicable to state and local governments in the context of asset forfeiture. the pennsylvania supreme court ruled that the state's excessive fines clause should apply to a case in which a 71-year-old woman's home was seized and taken because her son allegedly sold $200 worth of marijuana from the property. the pennsylvania court provided guidance on how the excessive fines clause should apply in cases such as this. however, neither of these opinions create a precedent that would stop forfeitures from the current -- the onus remains on property owners to challenge the seizures and retain counsel that can help them navigate, as you just said a moment ago, professor, the complex processes. professor, you lead the university of pennsylvania's law school's practice clinic, so i hope you can provide us some direct insight into the young decision. since young was handed down, have jurisdictions across pennsylvania reduced their use of civil asset forfeiture? >> thank you for that question. i wish i could say the answer was yes, but i can't. the reality is that, again, the excessive fines clause protection will only be of help if it is raised, if there's an opportunity of counsel to be there and to provide the representation, and the reality is that in so many of the cases there is no representation and individuals facing forfeiture of their property do not know to raise the various protections that do exist under the constitution. the pennsylvania supreme court decision is a very important decision and i would hope that, one day, the united states supreme court would adopt a much more protective framework for all citizens. >> are individuals contesting asset forfeiture able to state in their claims that a seizure violates the excessive fines clause, allowing for an expedited return of their property? >> yes. that exists as a result of this decision, but in practice, it is not happening. again, because, without legal help, people do not know that they have this available to them. prosecutors are not sharing this information with the individuals who they are taking property from, and so the law can exist, but it doesn't help ordinary people unless we are aware of it, unless we have the help that we need to express those concerns, and so it then comes back to due process, so we have a lot of work yet to do. >> thank you. thank you very much. the courts in pennsylvania apply the excessive fines clause on a case-by-case basis. and there are no expedited processes that would allow a layperson to easily represent themselves. mr. alban, i imagine this would hold true in the federal context as well. is that true? >> that is correct and the federal system is far more complex than pennsylvania's system because of the addition of the administrative forfeiture procedures under federal law, so it is even more difficult for someone to represent themselves in a federal forfeiture proceeding then under pennsylvania law. >> is there a role for courts to help prevent these forfeitures from occurring in the first place? >> absolutely. there should be judicial review of all forfeiture cases, administrative forfeiture should not exist in the first place, but if it does exist, property owners must have the ability to appeal any ruling by an administered of agency -- and coed of agency so when actual article three judge can review the forfeiture and decide whether it is legitimate. >> thank you. thank you very much. if i could ask you a brief question. >> this will be your final question. thank you. >> how does this lack of guidance affect the greater civil asset landscape and what does it imply for ongoing efforts at reform? >> thank you for the question. what it implies for ongoing efforts is that more reform is needed at the federal level, particularly violations of capra occurring right now. the dea reports that from last year that a negotiation process that feels like extortion is going on even as capra is supposed to, prevent a kind of conduct, where agents are bypassing the judicial process and not working with prosecutors to file a claim, go to court and sees the asset. instead, they waive their own deadlines, don't talk to the federal prosecutor, and they call up the property owner and negotiate a settlement, not unlike congressman clyde's case. >> thank you very much and, chairman, i yield back. >> thank you for your questioning. i turned out to the vice chair of the committee, ms. a causey of cortez -- the vice chair of this committee for questioning. >> there are two things to understand. i would like to thank those joining us for sharing today. i think this is simply an issue that americans, so many people in this country, cannot believe is real. civil forfeiture, mr. alban, means that the government, law enforcement, etc., is allowed to take away your property, often your car or even your home, without arrest, criminal charges, and without ever going to court, correct? >> that is correct. >> and as long as the police can claim that they believe this property is in some way connected to a crime, they can, you know, this seizure of one's property can just happen without any sort of recourse in the immediate >> that is true under the federal process. >> and then the police can sell your home or property and use the proceeds as revenue. >> after the property has been forfeited, yes. >> in the united states our criminal system over targets the poor and people of color, particularly black americans. correct? >> that is correct. >> and it relies with that exploitation that so many people do not have the ability of the resources, but if we put these two things together what we get is a picture of what is happening now that in the vast majority of civil forfeiture cases the government is driving away cars, kicking people out of their homes for clean suspicion, but not even the person that has property does not need to be corrected -- connected to these crimes. so, professor, what you are seeing in your practice is the combination of the inherent biases. combined with civil asset forfeiture means it is disproportionately poor people and low income people having their property seized. without any proven cause, correct? >> that is correct. we mapped that in philadelphia. we used geo mapping to show, that you are absolutely right. >> and then we have one of those witnesses today with ms. harris. the police drove your car away and for recent you did not understand when it was given to you and they did not even show you a single slip of paper when they took your car. right? >> that is correct. >> how long to the government take to contact you? >> five years. >> so they took your car without a shred of documentation and they took five years to get back to you about that? >> yes, that is correct. >> when they got back to you about that how long did the government -- how much time did they give you to respond to their notice? >> i believe it was between 25 and 21 days. they put the wrong address on there so by the time i got the paperwork i had two weeks. >> you could have moved. you could have had a change of address. it took them five years but they only gave you 21 days for this asset they had seized? that is devastating to lose overnight. that is what happened? >> yes, correct. >> initially you were not going to pursue recourse because the legal fees associated with getting your car back with that pro bono help, you were going to take it as a less. increasingly so many of our communities including those that i represent do not believe that we have a justice system in the united states but that this is just a punishment system that we have, equitable system that -- a criminal system that does not actually center the actual justice of their innocence and actually give them benefits of the doubt. we have a system that does not presume innocence until one is proven guilty unless you are wealthy or privileged in this country, and that is what we are here to address. thank you for calling the hearing and thank you for your continued work on the matter. i will ask the ranking member -- >> i will ask the ranking member for any closing remarks. >> thank you, mr. chairman for -- mr. chairman. i want to thank you for having this hearing and for working on this and then to see as we bring together members of the freedom caucus they are on the same issue and it's past time we work together. it shows that this is very much stated past time to work on this because there is something wrong and congress is finally doing something about it. i want to thank everyone who participated, ms. harris, for sharing your personal story. so insightful as well. and thank you for your place in this hearing. >> thank you for your participation in this hearing. i went to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record two reports into the record, policing for profit. without objection a center for american progress report, forfeiting the american dream. 16 different number of a group supporting stated march 15. all of these will be entered into the record. i want to close with a few thoughts about the fundamental importance of the hearing. i often think the two most beautiful words in the english language are due process. because all of us have had the experience and note the indignity and injustice of being wrongly accused of something and having something taken away from us because of that. that is what due process is all about. we have in the civil asset forfeiture system a whole apparatus and bureaucracy of government that inverts the general principles of due process. the basic idea is that we are all presumed innocent unless the government can actually show probable cause and make a case against us sustaining its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that we have committed a crime. what is happening is people are having their property taken away from them, whether it is their life savings that they have in their pocket because they are going to purchase a car or going to put a down payment on a house. it could be a car itself. it could even be an apartment or a condo. it could be a bank account in the case of mr. clyde. all of that is happening without people being charged with a crime or accused of a crime certainly not convicted. but their property has been taken away. at that point the whole system of due process is thrown out and now you need to go out and hire a lawyer if you can afford one. you have to sue the government to prove that you are innocence, your property is innocent, or if you were not interested -- innocent, otherwise there's no nexus but even that connection is thrown out the window because the assumption is because then the properties guilty and they will keep it and that is wrong. we've got a serious problem here , whether you are a wealthy businessman in georgia with $1 million in the bank or a homeless person in springfield, massachusetts who has only a car. you can be affected by this totally arbitrary inversion of due process, and it is also true as has been shown and then all of the background inequality become -- come to bear. -- but without it if you have the -- if you do not have the means to do it then you are at the mercy of a rather merciless system documented in this excellent poster which demonstrates the byzantine complexity of this orwellian and kafkaesque system that has grown up. so that is a real problem, and we did not even get into the corruption of government and law enforcement agencies and bureaucratic departments themselves. it has been mentioned several times. what does it do when the government agencies are told you can keep either 100% or a large part of the proceeds that you seize from people? start focusing on one side of the street and not on the other side of the break. you are looking for the money, you are not necessarily looking for the drugs. this problem has been exacerbated by the war on drugs because it is such a cash intensive business, there is so much money out there to be seized. this is another way in which the war on drugs is erasing basic civil liberty infrastructure of our constitutional system. we have got to clean this up. part of me says we should just get rid of the whole thing and said the government cannot take anybody's property until they have arrested you, invaded you, convicted you, and then they can take your stuff from you. the legislation we have been working on, and congressman warburg has been such a powerful intellectual force, this legislation does not go that far. this legislation should be agreed to by everyone across the spectrum whether you want to see things through the eyes of law enforcement or through the eyes of somebody who is been the victim of forfeiture. it says we will shift the burden of proof back onto the government. the government as got to prove by evidence that your property is guilty in connection to a crime. rather than you have to prove to increase transparency around the process. we want to dramatically restrict the use of equitable sharing agreements between doj and local and state law enforcement. i hope this is something that we can move in this session of congress and get it done on a bipartisan basis. i urge all of my colleagues to join us in hr 28-57. i want to thank the vice chair for her eloquent remarks and the participation today. i want to thank everybody for their focus on this, and our witnesses been wonderful today. thank you all, and we are determined to get this done. you all have five days i think -- one second, all members will have five days in which to submit additional questions for the witnesses and we will for them to you -- forward them to you and also offer any additional materials you wish to send us. we also witnesses to respond as quickly as you can. without any further business this hearing is adjourned, and thank you all for participating in it. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Charleston , South Carolina , Georgia , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Washington , East Texas , Florida , Minnesota , China , California , New Mexico , Charles County , Maryland , Greenville , Arizona , New Jersey , Nebraska , Massachusetts , Springfield , Ohio , New Yorker , Americans , Chinese , American , Dan Alban , Wasserman Schultz , Leon Adams , Malinda Harris , John Dillon ,