IACP Foundation Research Center Identity Crime Volunteers in Police Service
Less Lethal Weapons IACP Technology IACP International IACP Net DECP/DRE

IACP International Association of Chiefs of Police
global leadership in policing
FAQs    |   Contact Us    |   Other IACP Sites   
IACP Home
About IACP
 Membership
International
Conferences
Leadership
Calendar
Training
Links
Jobs
Research
Foundation
Center for Police Leadership
Resolutions
Publications
Awards/Campaigns
Legislative Activities
Professional Assistance
Divisions/Sections/Committees
Legislative Activities

Amicus Brief
Call for a National Commission
Capitol Reports
Chiefs Counsel Column
Contact Congress
Issues
Legal Officers Section
Legislative Agenda for Congress
Legislative Alerts
Legislative Updates
Model Statutes Project
Testimony and Communication
Viewpoints

This letter outlining IACP's view of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 was sent to Attorney General Janet Reno.

March 22, 2000

The Honorable Janet Reno
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Ms. Reno:

On behalf of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), I am writing to provide our views on the H.R. 1658, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000. As you know the IACP is world's oldest and largest association of law enforcement executives with more than 17,000 members in 101 countries.

At the outset, I would like to note that the IACP is gratified to see that many of our concerns with H.R. 1658 have been addressed. Most notably, the agreement to place the burden of proof on the government by a preponderance of evidence standard, as well as those provisions which continue the viability of the equitable sharing programs and those addressing the federal adoption of state and local forfeitures, are strongly supported by the IACP. In addition, the IACP is pleased to see that attorney fees awards will be paid from the Equal Access to Justice Fund and not drawn from the forfeiture fund.

However, the IACP remains concerned over the elimination of the cost bond requirement. Throughout this debate, it has been the IACP's contention that the elimination of the cost bond requirement has the potential for damaging the effectiveness of the asset forfeiture program. The IACP is not convinced that the up-front certification requirement and post-hearing penalty provisions contained in this legislation will serve as a sufficient deterrent to prevent the filing of an excessive number of frivolous claims. If such a provision is enacted then we hope that the Justice Department will take all steps necessary to prevent our concerns from becoming reality.

Ensuring that law enforcement agencies continue to have the ability to effectively seize and forfeit the assets of criminals' remains of vital importance to the IACP.

Sincerely,

Colonel Michael D. Robinson
President, IACP

Links

IACP Asset Forfeiture Page

FAQs   |  Contact Us   |  Other IACP Sites   |  IACP Home  
  515 North Washington St, Alexandria, VA USA  22314    phone: 703.836.6767   or   1.800.THE IACP    fax: 703.836.4543