Pubdate: Sun, 8 Oct 2000
Source: Kansas City Star (MO)
Copyright: 2000 The Kansas City Star
Contact:  1729 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, Mo. 64108
Feedback: http://www.kansascity.com/Discussion/
Website: http://www.kcstar.com/
Author: KAREN DILLON - The Kansas City Star
Author Contact: Karen Dillon, projects reporter, call (816) 234-4430 or 
send e-mail to BALLOT INITIATIVES SEEK TO CHANGE FORFEITURE LAWS IN THREE STATES

If lawmakers can't fix the forfeiture mess, then maybe voters can. At least 
that's the hope of activists and volunteers who have placed voter 
initiatives on the Nov. 7 ballots in three states to reform the way 
property seized in drug busts and traffic stops is confiscated. The 
initiatives in Utah, Oregon and Massachusetts would dramatically reduce the 
opportunity for law enforcement to violate the civil liberties of innocent 
victims of forfeiture, supporters say. The ballot measures would, in 
effect, require law enforcement to prove that a crime had occurred before 
property could be forfeited. And drug money, instead of going back to 
police, would be sent to a public education fund in Utah and drug treatment 
funds in Oregon and Massachusetts.

Both supporters and opponents see the initiatives as a skirmish line -- if 
even one of the three measures passes, the forfeiture battle could spread 
quickly to other states.

"If we are successful in making the changes, we will force the rest of the 
country, including the federal government, to begin putting in place the 
checks and balances that are lacking," said state Rep. Floyd Prozanski of 
Oregon.

Concern about forfeitures has been growing in many states in recent months. 
In May, The Kansas City Star published a series of articles showing that 
police across the country were working with federal agencies to evade their 
own state forfeiture laws.

Most state laws prevent police departments from directly benefiting from 
drug money they seize, out of fear that it could lead to abuses. But The 
Star found police often simply hand off drug money they seize to federal 
agencies, which keep part of it and give the rest back to police. In 
addition to preventing police from getting drug money back from federal 
agencies, all three ballot initiatives address concerns that police are 
violating civil liberties by conducting illegal seizures and using racial 
profiling.

Those issues normally should be dealt with through state legislatures but 
they are so controversial that politicians are at a stalemate, said 
Prozanski, a Democrat who in recent years failed to get a reform bill 
through his legislature.

The voter initiative appears to be the only option, he said. But law 
enforcement officials in each of the states are fighting back. They believe 
the initiatives would end property forfeitures and greatly hamper their 
ability to fight the war on drugs.

They also say that the donors who are funding the initiative campaigns have 
an ulterior motive -- to legalize drugs.

Three out-of-state tycoons have donated more than $1.25 million to the 
three campaigns: New Yorker George Soros, a billionaire and philanthropist; 
Arizonan John Sperling, founder of the University of Phoenix; and Ohioan 
Peter Lewis, an insurance magnate. But a political consultant for Lewis 
said the three donors have no hidden agenda. "None of them have supported 
drug legalization in this country," Sam Vagenas said.

Instead, the initiatives are a response by the donors to the costly failure 
that the war on drugs has become, said Ethan Nadelman, an adviser to Soros 
on drug policy.

"What they all have in common is they hate the drug war," Nadelman said. 
"George Soros sees it very much as a human rights issue." Charlie Evans, a 
political consultant to the opponents of the Utah initiative, said he 
believes that the three states are a testing ground for the financiers.

"If they have success here or in the other states, you'll see it filed in 
20 states next year," Evans said.

The three initiatives are similar in many ways: All require that drug money 
seized by local police and then forfeited by the federal government to be 
deposited in state funds rather than returned to police.

All carry penalties for not following the law. In Massachusetts, it would 
be a crime.

All increase the burden of evidence in order to forfeit money. Both sides 
agree that in practice a conviction would be required. All require detailed 
reporting of forfeitures.

In Utah and Oregon, the initiatives would require a court order before drug 
money could be transferred to a federal agency. Supporters think the 
initiatives have solid public support in all three states, each of which 
requires a simple majority for passage. Massachusetts, however, requires a 
voter turnout of at least 30 percent.

Utah A recent newspaper poll in Utah showed 58 percent of voters statewide 
would vote in favor of the initiative with 12 percent opposed. Twenty-one 
percent were unsure.

However, all major candidates for governor and attorney general oppose 
Initiative B.

Evans, the opponents' consultant, warned that if the initiative passes, it 
could become a huge detriment to forfeitures in the state. "It would so 
encumber the process with extra so-called protections and extra loopholes, 
it would make forfeiture very significantly, much, much harder to do," 
Evans said. "In the end the money that is realized from the sale of the 
assets would be less than a tenth of what it is today." But one supporter, 
Randy Horiuchi, disputed that conclusion. "There is nothing that our 
initiative does to hamper their ability to take property," said Horiuchi, a 
former Salt Lake County commissioner and son of a police veteran. "We did 
make it so they are going to have a tougher burden to prove but, my word, 
that is due process." Utah is the only state where law enforcement has 
organized a campaign against the initiative. But the Coalition to Stop Drug 
Dealer Profits has raised only about $15,000 compared with Utahns for 
Property Protection, which has more than $560,000.

Oregon Harry Detwiler, a 67-year-old retired schoolteacher, has become the 
poster boy for the Oregon Property Protection Act of 2000. Three years ago, 
a sheriff's task force in Medford and federal agents searched Detwiler's 
home and seized $35,000 from a safe but found no drugs. Detwiler never was 
charged with a crime, and he had receipts to show where the money had come 
from. But the federal government kept the money anyway because Detwiler 
missed a deadline for filing a claim. A lawyer has taken Detwiler's case 
pro bono, and it is on appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Certainly, this is America," Detwiler said. "Little did I know." The 
Oregonians for Property Protection campaign is using Detwiler to show how 
abusive forfeiture can be, although it's unclear how the initiative would 
have affected his case.

Even though his sister was murdered by a drug dealer in the 1970s, Rep. 
Prozanski believes his state's forfeiture laws lack protection for Oregonians.

"The people should be held accountable, but we have a duty to see that 
government has proper checks and balances," Prozanski said. "The whole 
credibility of our justice system is shaken."

Law enforcement officials said that if the initiative wins, it will 
irreparably harm an important law enforcement tool.

"There would be no more forfeitures by the drug task forces in (Oregon)," 
said Lt. Jim Anderson, a member of the Jackson County Narcotics Enforcement 
Team, the drug task force in southwest Oregon that was involved in the 
Detwiler case.

"There would be nothing to motivate us," Anderson said. "There would be no 
rewards for doing this."

Massachusetts Instead of focusing on forfeiture reform, supporters in 
Massachusetts are stumping for the need to treat drug abuse and make 
convicted drug dealers pay for it.

"Drug money for drug treatment. That seems to be working," said Al Gordon, 
spokesman for the Massachusetts Coalition for Fair Treatment. That's the 
campaign strategy, but the initiative's bottom line is forfeiture reform. 
District attorneys and law enforcement recognize that and staunchly oppose it.

Under the initiative, drug money forfeited under state law would go to drug 
treatment instead of to police and district attorneys, as it does now. The 
measure would not prohibit police from seeking to transfer drug money to 
federal agencies -- but when the money comes back, it would go to drug 
treatment, not police.

In June, the state's 11 district attorneys and the Massachusetts Chiefs of 
Police Association filed a lawsuit asking the Supreme Judicial Court to 
rule that the measure was unconstitutional and should be removed from the 
ballot.

Last Monday, the court ruled that the initiative can remain on the ballot. 
The court said it can't actually rule on the content of the initiative 
unless it passes.

Two of the initiative's most outspoken critics, Middlesex County District 
Attorney Martha Coakley and Geline Williams, executive director of the 
Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, did not return telephone 
calls seeking comment.

Deena Whitfield, chairwoman of the Coalition for Fair Treatment, said law 
enforcement and district attorneys have had years to try to correct the 
drug problem but have failed.
- ---
MAP posted-by: GD