In the past eight years, drug-related property seizures have brought in more than $43.5 million to local police departments and state anti-drug programs.

Senate Bill 5935, which is to be introduced today, would allow assets to be taken only after a conviction. It would also require that property taken by police be spent only on drug-treatment programs, not law-enforcement agencies.

The bill is being promoted by the ACLU, which has long objected to the property-forfeiture laws.

"It represents one more facet of a cancer on our society - the perversion of our justice system under our drug laws," said Gerard Sheehan, a lobbyist for the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Law-enforcement officials were quick to condemn the proposal. They say that losing property is a suitable punishment for those suspected of drug-related crimes. And the money has become essential for police departments trying to stay on top of rising drug crimes while dealing with tighter budgets.

"That'd put us out of business," said Tacoma police spokesman Jim Mattheis.

Lawmakers, however, say police departments have become overly dependent on money from drug-related seizures. They think it's unfair for police to take property from someone who has not been convicted of a crime.

"Everybody deserves their day in court," said Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, one of 10 co-sponsors of the bill.

Washington's seizure law dates from the 1970s. But it was changes in 1992 that made it easier for police to take property and required detailed reporting of property forfeitures.

The law requires that 10 percent go to the state for a special drug-education account. Police can keep the other 90 percent to help pay to enforce drug laws. Cars seized are sometimes used by undercover officers. Other assets are sold at auction with the proceeds funding department operations.

The law allows police to seize property if there is probable cause to believe it was used, or was intended to be used, in the manufacture, sale or shipment of drugs. Police can also take any asset that they suspect was paid for with earnings from drug sales.

Former Spokane Sheriff Larry Erickson said yesterday his department once took a Hawaii condominium and a yacht from a man he described as a cocaine broker. No drugs were actually found on the man's property.

"It's a penalty against those people who are preying on our children," said Erickson, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. "One of the best tools we have is to take assets that were gotten illegally."

He said that drug dealers have told him that losing their assets hurts more than short stays in prison.

In recent years there has been a backlash led by civil libertarians on the left and right.

It's also a major thrust of the drug-reform movement, the effort to reduce criminal penalties on drug use.

Voters in Oregon and Utah approved citizens initiatives in November rewriting property-forfeiture laws.

The Oregon measure amended the state constitution to require that a property owner be convicted of a crime before property can be seized. The assets would go to treatment and drug-education programs, not law enforcement.

In Utah, the initiative requires prosecutors to show "clear and convincing evidence" that property was involved in crime.

The measures were funded by some of the same people who have financed initiatives here and elsewhere to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes.

The ACLU-backed bill here includes some of the Senate's most liberal and most conservative members - from Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, to Sen. Val Stevens, R-Arlington.

"I think there's pretty widespread concern over pre-conviction asset forfeiture," said Sen. Dow Constantine, D-West Seattle, prime sponsor of the bill. "It just rubs people the wrong way."

His proposal would require that before property can be taken, someone must be convicted of a crime and that the property be found "by clear and convincing evidence to have been instrumental in committing or facilitating the crime."

The state drug-education fund would still get the 10 percent required under current law. But the remaining money would have to be used exclusively for drug treatment.

Stevens said she thinks the current law leads police to temptation. She says they could be making arrests because of the assets they could get.

"You are placing law enforcement in the position of tempting themselves with what they maybe aren't able to resist," she said. "I'm not accusing them. I'm just saying they could be tempted."

Sheehan, the ACLU lobbyist, called money from seized assets "loot." He told a House committee yesterday that the money is being "derived from theft." That angered law-enforcement officials. "We're not corrupt. We're not thieves," Erickson told members of the State Government Committee. "We don't sneak around in the middle of the night taking your property."

King County Sheriff's spokesman Sgt. John Urquhart said in an interview that police do like to go after the money --- but not for what Stevens thinks.

"Is it tempting sometimes to target drug dealers who have a lot of money? It is," he said. "But not to get the money. It's because you can hit them where it hurts. You can take away the motive for them to be in business."

Information from Seattle Times computer-assisted reporting specialist Justin Mayo was used in this report.

David Postman can be reached at 360-943-9882 or by e-mail at: dpostman@seattletimes.com

Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Author: David Postman, Seattle Times Political Reporter
Published: February 8, 2001
Copyright: 2001 The Seattle Times Company
Address: P.O. Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111
Fax: (206) 382-6760
Contact: opinion@seatimes.com
Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/

A.C.L.U.
http://www.aclu.org/

F.E.A.R.
http://www.fear.org/

CannabisNews Articles - Forfeiture
http://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=forfeiture

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

I don’t know what planet this policeman is from but it’s not Earth. The police in the community were I live in are vary dangerous. They frequently beat, rob or murder people. If a policeman stops you where I live you had better be extremely careful. Here the police are much more dangerous than the criminals are. When they kill someone the standard police response is, “I felt my life was threatened”. This is a standard response that seems to cover any and all situations. The “Internal Affaires” reviews are nothing but a white wash. The police department is riddled with corruption -- beware! This is the truth.

[ Post Comment ]

Probably. This still does not explain how getting an actual-factual conviction before taking somebody's stuff is a problem. Sheesh.

[ Post Comment ]

Sounds like stealing to me.

[ Post Comment ]

. . . . Of course if he really wanted "take away the motive" he'd support legalization and put those meanies right out of business!


[ Post Comment ]