Pubdate: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 Source: Muskogee Daily Phoenix (OK) Copyright: 2006 Muskogee Daily Phoenix Contact: http://www.muskogeephoenix.com/customerservice/contactus.html Website: http://www.muskogeephoenix.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3319 Author: Donna Hales Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture) JUDGE: DA MUST ANSWER QUESTIONS A federal judge has ordered Muskogee County District Attorney John David Luton and an investigator to answer questions about storage of seized items. "If defendants do not maintain inventory logs or some other means of tracking the disposition of seized property, then plaintiff is entitled to inspect the facilities so she (plaintiff) may discover the process," states an order signed by U.S. District Magistrate Judge Kimberly West. The order was filed in one of two civil racketeering cases filed against Luton and five of his drug task force members in 2004 in federal court in Muskogee. Both cases involve allegations Luton and his employees seized and forfeited property they had no right to seize and then illegally sold the property. Luton contends his office has done nothing wrong and there is not a problem with forfeitures. The civil racketeering case in question was filed by Margaret Baude, who claims Luton's employees seized property belonging to her dead son and that she is his only heir. Luton and District Attorney Investigator Sam Taylor earlier refused to answer questions about the storage of property seized and forfeited during depositions, the ruling states. They did so on the advice of their attorney, an assistant state attorney general. The state attorney general argued disclosing the information would hamper law enforcement in their efforts to protect evidence collection and storage, saying the storage facilities might be burglarized. The inspection sought by Baude "is relevant to her claims and is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," West's ruling states. West said Baude shall be permitted to again depose the parties with the knowledge of the functioning of the storage facilities in question. Should the information sought not be forthcoming, West ruled physical inspection of the facilities could be requested if such action were justified. West also ordered defendants to release information they earlier refused to release, including their addresses, personal assets and other discovery of a personal nature, except for their Social Security numbers. Baude has demonstrated the information is relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant information, West ruled. She said release of the information would be subject to a protective order to preclude the general public spread of the personal information. Plaintiffs in the suits contend Luton's employees often use seized and forfeited items for their use and sometimes keep those items at their homes. State audits of Luton's office released in July 2005 for the years 2003 and 2004 state Luton's office: Forfeited property without a court order; Failed to keep a complete inventory of seized items; and Failed to receipt or deposit funds seized years earlier. Similar findings were noted in a 2002 audit. State Auditor and Inspector Jeff McMahan, said in July he hadn't found any district attorney forfeitures that "were in this big a mess .. this has been about as bad as I've heard of." The 2004 audit cited funds from six forfeiture cases filed during the years 2000 and 2001 were "neither receipted nor deposited until June 9, 2004." McMahan said it was the same story -- "they just aren't keeping records, and we're going to keep recommending they do." McMahan said at the time he had not run into a similar situation. "I haven't seen one that continued for three years like this." - --- MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman