Pubdate: Thu, 07 Jan 2016
Source: Oklahoman, The (OK)
Copyright: 2016 The Oklahoma Publishing Co.
Contact: http://www.newsok.com/voices/guidelines
Website: http://newsok.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/318
Author: Barbara Hoberock
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture)

DAS VOICE CONCERNS OVER EFFORT TO CHANGE FORFEITURES

Rhetoric is heating up about a proposal to change the state's civil 
asset forfeiture process.

Lawmakers return in February to the Capitol, where the issue is 
expected to be debated.

The leading voice for change is Sen. Kyle Loveless, R-Oklahoma City. 
He has filed Senate Bill 838, which would make dramatic changes to a 
law that allows law enforcement to seize property and cash suspected 
of being used in a crime. The current process does not require a conviction.

Prosecutors statewide strongly oppose the measure.

Tuesday, the Oklahoma District Attorneys Association sent lawmakers a 
letter voicing its concerns with the bill.

"Enactment of Senate Bill 838 will dramatically hinder law 
enforcement efforts aimed at stopping the drug trade in Oklahoma," 
said the letter, signed by association President Mike Boring and Mike 
Fields, the group's president-elect.

"It is estimated that $5 (million) to $10 million per year of the 
drug enforcement efforts in Oklahoma are funded by the forfeited 
proceeds of drug dealers, traffickers, criminal street gangs and drug 
cartels. Limiting the use of this valuable tool will place the burden 
of funding this effort on the taxpayers - hardworking innocent Oklahomans."

On Wednesday, a coalition supporting the changes fired back with a 
letter of its own.

"The United States has had unjust laws - slavery, poll taxes and 
citizens being denied the right to vote," the letter said. "Now is 
the time to add civil asset forfeiture to that list of outdated, 
unjust laws. We believe the pendulum has swung too far from due 
process and the principle of innocent until proven guilty."

The coalition includes the ACLU of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Council of 
Public Affairs, Oklahoma Policy Institute, the Oklahoma Second 
Amendment Association and the NAACP, Oklahoma City branch.

Both sides agree there has been misinformation about the civil asset 
forfeiture process.

Loveless said the letter from prosecutors was not unexpected.

Plan would require conviction

His plan would require a conviction before property could be 
forfeited to the government, with some exceptions.

He would institute a timeline for charges to be brought against 
property owners to ensure the timely return of property if the 
government doesn't have enough evidence to prove a crime was committed.

The plan would remove the direct profit from forfeiture by creating a 
panel to determine how the seized funds and property would be 
allocated to drug treatment, drug courts and drug interdiction.

The bill also would raise the burden of proof that would allow law 
enforcement to keep the property.

"The notion that Oklahoma prosecutors and law enforcement officers 
are routinely violating Oklahomans' rights so they can buy things 
used to combat the drug trade is very offensive to Oklahoma 
prosecutors and law enforcement," Fields said.

Budget shortfall looms

The District Attorneys Council recently appeared before a legislative 
committee to discuss its budget. Lawmakers are expected to have at 
least $900.8 million less with which to craft the upcoming fiscal year budget.

Lawmakers were told that less than half of a district attorney's 
budget comes from legislative appropriations. The rest comes from 
federal grants, supervision fees, bogus check fees, child support 
activities and drug asset forfeitures.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom