Pubdate: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 Source: Denver Post (CO) Copyright: 2015 The Denver Post Corp Contact: http://www.denverpost.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122 Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v15/n098/a02.html TIGHTEN STATE'S FORFEITURE LAW Back in 2002, a large majority of Colorado lawmakers concluded that police should seize the assets of people only after criminal conviction, with few exceptions- and wrote those requirements into law. But asset forfeiture without a conviction still occurs, as a case highlighted in a recent Denver Post story by Noelle Phillips made clear. As related by Phillips, a South Dakota couple in December watched Parker police and a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent take $25,000 from their vehicle after a stop triggered by a temporary tag. And yet the couple were never charged with a crime, let alone convicted. Such a seizure would be wrong even if the couple didn't have a plausible, if unusual, story about why they had so much cash in hand- because it trampled on due process and the presumption of innocence under the U.S. Constitution. But it also clearly is counter to what lawmakers envisioned in 2002. It appears Parker police may have summoned a DEA agent as a way to sidestep state law. If so, their ploy is hardly new or unique. Indeed, Attorney General Eric Holder last month issued an order that bars federal agencies from "adopting" civil forfeitures from local departments. Unfortunately, he didn't go far enough. As the Institute for Justice in Washington, D.C., f0und when it examined data from 2008 to 2013, "the vast majority of seizures, including most that occur under the controversial equitable sharing program, would continue after the policy change." Most of the sharing between federal and local agencies, it turns out, "resulted from joint task forces or joint investigations exempt from the new rules." Sen. Laura Woods, R-Arvada, wants the legislature to attempt to tighten the rules on asset forfeiture once again. And although she tells us her Senate Bill 6 will be watered down somewhat from its original form to meet law enforcement objections, it is still a worthwhile measure. Probably the biggest change in her amended bill, which is scheduled for a hearing this week, would bar local agencies from participating in a federal asset forfeiture action if the property is valued at less than $50,000. Lawmakers can't dictate what federal agents do, but they can try to eliminate incentives for police to initiate or cooperate in the more marginal, and dubious, actions. Lee McGrath, legislative counsel for the Institute for Justice, maintains that "it is completely within the power of a legislature to instruct law enforcement when they can enter into contracts with federal agencies. Raising the dollar threshold is a way to address the circumvention" of strict state law. Colorado can't prevent the federal government from abusing citizen rights, but it should try to make sure its own agencies aren't complicit in the behavior. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom