Today I received Senator Carper's reply to my letter about Civil Asset Forfeiture. I was not satisfied by his answer, and here I how I responded:

Dear Senator Carper:

Thank you for your reply to my recent message regarding Civil Asset Forfeiture. You (or your staff) said:

As you may be aware, there are two types of forfeiture, civil and criminal, and I share your concern regarding the seizure of properties. Criminal forfeiture is subject to the constitutional safeguards available under criminal law, and these proceedings take place during the trial. Civil forfeiture, to which you refer, is based on the unlawful use of property and follows the rules of civil procedure.

The Constitution does not make this artificial distinction between Criminal & Civil procedure.

As you may know, Congress made progress on this issue earlier this decade, and The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 made considerable improvements regarding civil asset forfeiture. Most importantly, the law ensured the burden of proof necessary to seize property was placed upon the government enforcement agencies. Moreover, it defined innocent owners as those who did not know of the conduct that gave rise to forfeiture or those who did all reasonably possible to stop the illegal use of property. This law helps protect property owners, particularly those who might be at risk of losing a primary residence.

This was only a tiny step in the right direction. And yet...

Federal agents are now exploiting the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act to seize bank accounts and computers.

The leader of a new Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering task force admits that unlike criminal cases where the suspect is presumed innocent until proved guilty, in civil asset forfeiture case:

• if you lose property to an asset forfeiture seizure you must prove your innocence in order to get it back
• you have no 5th amendment protections -- even your silence can be used against you.

Under Illinois law, the state can withhold cash, cars, or other property for six months without even a preliminary hearing! Under the law, three innocent people had to wait over a year to get their cars back. They, along with three innocent people who had money stolen from them, have argued the Constitutionality of the Illinois law.

These are just a few examples.

Civil asset forfeiture also encourages corruption, where police steal money from citizens in order to pay for new equipment outside the constraints of the budget process, or even for personal profit.

The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act calls for a hearing in judicial proceedings in which property owners have the opportunity to speak and share testimonies. This Act also ensures that in nonjudicial proceedings all "interested parties" are contacted, and anybody asserting a claim to the property may file a complaint with the government for the property to be released. As you may know, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, P.L. 106-185, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on April 25, 2000.

With all due respect sir, this is not even close to good enough! Please do not insult my intelligence by telling me about a woefully inadequate measure from almost a decade ago when you know as well as I do that the abuses have continued unabated, and even increased in recent years thanks to the PATRIOT Act and other Constitutionally questionable legislation.

The 4th Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The 5th Amendment states "... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...".

The 7th Amendment states "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, ..."

The 14th Amendment states "... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ...".

These statements are all part of the Constitution that you swore an Oath that you "will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend".

With that said, I am not aware of any legislation currently pending in the U.S. Senate regarding this matter. However, should this issue come before the full Senate, I will be sure to keep your views in mind.

Once again sir, please do not insult my intelligence. Everyone knows that you do not have to wait for this issue come before the Senate. You or any other Senator can introduce it at any time, and in fact it is your sworn duty to do so. Just as, if you are unwilling to properly represent the People of Delaware in this matter, it is our duty to replace you with someone who will.

Sincerely,

Tom Uffner