Pubdate: Mon, 07 Jul 2003
Source: Herald Journal, The (UT)
Page: A4
Copyright: 2003 The Herald Journal
Contact:  http://www.hjnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2485
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture)

TOP LAW ENFORCERS CAN'T IGNORE LAW THEY DON'T LIKE

 From the Deseret Morning News

Utahns expect their top law enforcers -- Attorney General Mark Shurtleff 
and the various district and county attorneys -- to uphold all laws, even 
those with which they disagree.

That hasn't been the case with Utah's voter-approved asset forfeiture law, 
which requires that proceeds of property seized from  lleged drug sellers 
and users be funneled into the Uniform School Fund. The money has, instead, 
been divided among law enforcement agencies, as it was in the past. A 3rd 
District judge has ruled that the practice violates the law established by 
the citizen initiative approved by voters in 2000.

Obviously, elected law enforcers don't like this law, which was pitched to 
voters as a way to stem alleged government abuse of power. While we agree 
that voters were sold a bill of goods with this initiative, law enforcers 
need to convince the Utah Legislature to re-do the asset forfeiture law. 
They can't simply ignore what it says.

The Utah Legislature, understandably, is reluctant to go against the will 
of the people on this particular issue. We remind lawmakers that Initiative 
It was approved by voters largely because of unchecked fear mongering by 
its proponents. A legislative audit conducted before the 2000 election 
raised some concerns about how forfeiture proceeds were distributed but 
found no evidence that law enforcers had abused their authority in seizing 
cash and property during drug investigations.

The urban legends of little old ladies who had lost their homes because 
delinquent grandchildren were dealing drugs from the basement were just 
that, fiction. Unfortunately, voters were otherwise convinced by the 
affluent out-of-staters who got Initiative B on the ballot.

Proponents of Initiative B say that most people who have property 
confiscated end up losing it in legal proceedings. That can likely be 
attributed to the fact that many people fail to show up in court. Is it the 
government's fault that people don't avail themselves of due process? It is 
troubling when people don't appear in court because they are too poor to 
hire an attorney and don't have the wherewithal to act as their own 
counsel. That's a different matter than failing to show up for hearings.

Again, the law is the law. No matter how much prosecutors don't like this 
particular one, they are duty-bound to uphold it following 3rd District 
Judge Tyrone Medley's ruling that civil asset forfeiture proceeds must be 
turned over to the state. As a practical matter, some $327,900 isn't going 
to reform Utah's public school system, but that is where the money 
rightfully belongs.

Until the Legislature can amend this law to make it more workable for state 
and local agencies charged with narcotics enforcement, prosecutors must 
abide by what is arguably bad law. Perhaps Medley's ruling will result in a 
concerted effort among law enforcers to work with the Legislature to junk it
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom