Pubdate: Wed, 17 Feb 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: Chris Ross
Note: Ross, of Ada, is district attorney for Hughes, Pontotoc and 
Seminole counties.

STATE'S SEIZURE LAWS DON'T NEED AN OVERHAUL

Legislation has been proposed to overhaul the drug asset forfeiture 
laws in Oklahoma. Unfortunately, Oklahoma laws regarding drug asset 
forfeiture have been so severely misrepresented that the truth of how 
these laws work is lost.

Under Oklahoma law, a law enforcement officer can seize property only 
if he has an arrest warrant, search warrant, probable cause to 
believe the property is dangerous, or probable cause to believe that 
the property has been used, or will be used, in violation of Oklahoma 
narcotics laws.

After the property is seized, the district attorney determines 
whether to file a petition to forfeit the property. Notice is given 
to the owner of the property. The district attorney then must prove 
that the property was used or going to be used in violation of 
Oklahoma's narcotics laws. The district attorney must meet this 
burden even if the owner does not appear in court. A judge determines 
whether the property is forfeited.

The proposal that a conviction be necessary before forfeiture is 
granted is an ill-conceived notion that ignores the reality of the 
narcotics trade. Drug proceeds are transported across the highways of 
this nation every day. Many times the money is in tightly wrapped 
plastic to make it more compact, and thus easier to hide. Large 
amounts of money are hidden in commercial vehicles such as car 
transports, semi-trucks or rental cars. When the money is discovered, 
the driver claims to have no knowledge of it and no ownership interest in it.

These facts would not support a criminal conviction. There simply is 
no way to prove that a commercial driver knew that drugs or money was 
stashed in a hidden compartment in the vehicle. If a conviction were 
required to seize and forfeit that money, then the officer would have 
no choice but to allow these drivers to continue down the road with 
the money still in the vehicle. Thus, the cry for "civil asset 
reform" would be more correctly called "drug dealer's profit protection."

Oklahoma has been successful in protecting the rights of law-abiding 
citizens while making it hard for drug cartels and criminal street 
gangs to realize the profits of their criminal enterprises. Indeed, 
many of Oklahoma's laws could be a model for other states.

Oklahoma's drug asset forfeiture laws have been thoughtfully 
scrutinized, developed and refined over decades by the Legislature 
and the courts of this state and nation. Weakening Oklahoma's laws 
based on abuses in other states would needlessly tie the hands of law 
enforcement and benefit violent criminal organizations for no 
compelling reason.

Out-of-state interest groups reacting to situations in other states 
are urging changes in our laws. We should be thankful for the 
protections built into our drug asset forfeiture laws. Rather than 
changing our laws, perhaps these interest groups should take our laws 
to the states where actual abuses may be occurring.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom