Pubdate: Sun, 12 Jun 2005
Source: Bulletin, The (Bend, OR)
Copyright: 2005 Western Communications Inc.
Contact:  http://www.bendbulletin.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/62
Author: James Sinks
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture)

PROPERTY FORFEITURE BILL HEADS TO SENATE

SALEM - The Oregon Legislature is moving closer toward reversing a popular
2000 ballot measure that made it harder for police to seize and sell your
property.

Under Measure 3, such forfeitures could only occur after a person was
convicted of a crime.

But with that initiative under appeal in the Oregon Supreme Court, the House
voted 39-18 for legislation last week that would clear the way for law
enforcement to resume that controversial practice.

House Bill 3457 now heads to the state Senate.

The justification offered by supporters: The extra millions will help police
fight the state's drug epidemic, and some proceeds will be sprinkled among
other worthy causes, such as drug courts, toxic lab cleanups and relief
nurseries that help at-risk kids.

"I don't really like to overturn the voters' decisions, but we are in a
desperate position with the meth battle and we need all the resources we can
get," said Rep. Gene Whisnant, R-Sunriver.

Assuming the legislation ultimately passes and is signed by the governor, it
would go into effect only if Measure 3 is overturned by the Supreme Court.
The Lincoln County anti-narcotic team sued to block the measure on technical
grounds, arguing that it violated the state's "single-subject" rule for
changing the Constitution.

Property seizures were the main source of income for police drug teams
across the state before the ballot measure.

Fleets of cars, boats, cash and even random kitchen appliances were taken by
police, who would sell the seized property for profit.

Chief sponsor Rep. Andy Olson, R-Albany, a retired police detective and the
former head of the Linn-Benton narcotics team, said drug-fighting efforts
across the state were dealt a major blow by the ballot measure.

His former command, known as VALIANT, has since shut down because of lack of
funding, he said.

The successful campaign for Measure 3 brought together odd political
bedfellows: The coalition included conservative property-rights groups and
gun-rights activists, and also the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon.

Olson said voters were bamboozled by the ballot measure, which was financed
in part by out-of-state interests, including billionaire George Soros, a
supporter of drug legalization.

Police agencies did not seize property of innocent people, as alleged, he
said.

"Those that brought Measure 3 sold you a bag a goods that stunk," he said.
"The 67 percent of voters that voted for it clearly (did not know) what they
were voting for."

The initiative also restricted the use of dollars to keep police from having
a profit motive. The money obtained under such forfeitures could go to
treatment rather than to police.

Olson said House Bill 3457 makes improvements on the forfeiture laws that
existed before Measure 3.

For instance, police will have to show that property was actually involved
in a crime or bought with illicit profits.

Deschutes County District Attorney Mike Dugan, who watched the floor debate
in the Capitol on Friday, said the law enforcement community cannot afford
to aggressively seize property because there is no profit available to help
cover the costs of the cases.

As a result, the number of seizures has dropped significantly in the past
four years.

Prosecutors support the legislation because it would restore some dollars to
those offices, but also protect innocent people, Dugan said.

"We worked hard to get a forfeiture that would be legal, constitutional and
would protect the rights of citizens, and this bill does that," he said.

But David Fidanque, the director of the state ACLU affiliate, said the
authors of the legislation did not invite any of the Measure 3 supporters to
participate in the negotiations, and that the bill shows that police
agencies are out-of-step with the public.

"Is there some kind of middle ground? Absolutely," he said. "But this is not
it."

Under the legislation, the burden of proof to seize property - "clear and
convincing" evidence - is less than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden
needed to convict a person of a crime. In addition, a person would not need
to be arrested or even charged with a crime for property to be taken and
sold.

If lawmakers pass the bill as written, it could provoke another ballot
measure, Fidanque said.

During an animated floor debate, several Democrats decried the bill and said
the best course - if any - would be to follow the example set after the
Supreme Court overturned a package of victims' rights in 1996's Measure 40
because of single-subject concerns.

The assembly subsequently referred seven separate initiatives to the 1999
ballot and gave voters the chance to revisit each tenet of the earlier
measure. Ultimately, four of them passed.

"Every single one of us wants to go after meth in the state of Oregon," said
Rep. Peter Buckley, D-Ashland. "But there was no ambiguity in the vote (on
Measure 3), which was that everyone is innocent until proven guilty."

And Rep. Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, criticized the fact that if a person's
property is seized - but then they are later acquitted - there is no
provision that gives them the property back.

"Is there anything more straightforward? If we are acquitted, shouldn't we
get our assets back?"

Rep. Wayne Krieger, R-Gold Beach, a retired police trooper and chairman of
the House Judiciary Committee, said the new safeguards will ensure that
police are no longer allowed to go "trolling for dollars."

Rep. Brian Boquist, R-Dallas, who voted for Measure 3, said he was
comfortable with the proposed law because all forfeiture cases would go
before a judge.

The vote on the measure was politically perilous, no matter which side
lawmakers fell on.

Those who voted against it will be undoubtedly painted as soft on crime,
while those who supported it will be criticized for breaking faith with
voters.

Perhaps as a reflection of that, two lawmakers - Reps. Jeff Kropf,
R-Sublimity, and Derrick Kitts, R-Hillsboro - left the House floor and
didn't vote at all, despite a parliamentary "Call of the House" that
required the presence of all members.

Neither could be reached for comment Friday on their absences.

"Both of them left to do things that they thought were more important to
them than being on the House floor," said Gary Wilhelms, chief of staff for
the House Speaker's office. "They asked for excused absences but were
denied."

The chairwoman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said after Friday's vote
that she expects to see the bill reworked. In particular, said Sen. Ginny
Burdick, D-Portland, she wants to ensure that people who are found innocent
at trial get their property back.

But if suspects flee and don't go to trial, then they don't deserve to
retain the property, she said.

Burdick is a co-sponsor of the bill.

"This is all a matter of degree," she said. "Civil forfeiture, but with the
proper restrictions, can be a good tool."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh