T
The420Guy
Guest
When state senators last week failed to vote on legislation making it
harder for police to confiscate private property, law enforcement agencies
across Washington cheered.
But others, on both a national and local level, insist the fight for
civil-forfeiture reform is far from over.
They think the climate in Washington may be ripe for a citizens initiative,
such as the ones voters in Oregon and Utah overwhelmingly passed last November.
The bill, introduced by Sen. Dow Constantine, D-King, would have changed
the state's civil forfeiture laws by requiring that suspects be convicted
before police and prosecutors take away their homes, cars or cash.
Because most of their forfeited property comes from narcotics dealers,
local authorities contend the new law would have crippled their offensive
strategy in the war on drugs.
The legislation would have hit the Bellevue-based Eastside Narcotics Task
Force particularly hard.
Last year, the task force led the state in forfeiture, taking nearly
$700,000, according to state records. Officers seized $2.6 million in
assets; prosecutors say agencies typically keep about one-third of what
they take.
In Washington, most of the proceeds go back to the law enforcement agency
that seized the property.
The American Civil Liberties Union calls the practice an egregious conflict
of interest.
"To get your stuff back, you have to either hire a lawyer who knows what
he's doing or go plead your case in front of another police officer," said
Seattle lawyer Richard Troberman, a national expert in civil forfeiture law.
"It's like letting the fox guard the hen house," Troberman said.
"They say they're protecting the public from drug dealers, but more and
more often, they're profiting from small-time drug users and people who
grow medical marijuana."
Last year, the Eastside Narcotics Task Force seized $4.5 million worth of
illegal drugs, $3.29 million of which was of marijuana.
Authorities, however, say marijuana trafficking from British Columbia is a
particular problem, and they scoff at accusations that agencies are
targeting petty possession cases.
"They're making people think that if you get caught smoking a joint at
home, the police are going to come and take your house," said Sheila
Weirth, the King County deputy prosecutor assigned to the Eastside
Narcotics Task Force. "I think it's a big misconception."
The Eastside task force has been operating for 20 years and includes 10
officers from Bellevue, Redmond, Issaquah, Kirkland and Mercer Island, as
well as Weirth, a DEA agent and a drug-sniffing black Labrador retriever
named Dollar.
In most instances, the task force seizes personal property, not real
estate, although real estate is always worth more. Last year, the team
seized $1.6 million in real estate, in addition to 41 vehicles, 24 guns and
$437,471 in cash.
While authorities acknowledge that revenue from the forfeitures helps their
departments, taking property seems to punish criminals more than prison terms.
"You tell people that they're going to jail for 24 months and they're like,
'no big deal.' But you take their car away, and it doesn't even have to be
a nice car, they get really, really upset," Weirth said.
Seizing assets right away prevents criminals from transferring their
property while they await trial, Weirth said.
But Troberman said he's seen too many innocent clients spend thousands of
dollars to settle cases or defend themselves.
And that is only if it's worth hiring a lawyer.
"If they take a car and it's worth $1,000," Troberman said, "you can't
effectively hire a lawyer to get it back."
'People despise this'
In the case of forfeiture, rarely has an issue made such strange bedfellows.
Reform supporters range from the ACLU to the National Rifle Association.
And while drug-law reform is traditionally a liberal issue, conservative
Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., who has pushed federal reform for years, called
the world of civil forfeiture "Kafka-esque."
Congress moved last summer to curb forfeiture by federal authorities, whom
defense lawyers say tend to be the biggest foxes of all.
But by the time the bill hit the Senate floor, it was so diluted that some
wondered whether it actually did anything.
Nonetheless, the bill generated a lot of publicity, said Scott Ehlers,
director of research for the Campaign for New Drug Policies in California.
It was Ehlers' group -- a well-funded organization backed by a trio of
investors, including billionaire financier George Soros -- that
successfully pushed the Oregon and Utah initiatives.
The group hasn't yet decided where it will focus its attention next.
But its sights could be set on Washington.
Ehlers said activists in the state support a drive to restrict civil
forfeiture.
"I tell people that this issue is like racial profiling one and a half
years ago," said Gerard Sheehan, the ACLU's Olympia lobbyist.
"People really despise this practice."
Similar efforts to control forfeiture abuses are being made in at least a
dozen other states, from Nevada to New Jersey.
Most states, including Washington, have provisions in their statutes that
protect innocent property owners, such as an oblivious spouse.
But those provisions don't go far enough in making the forfeiture laws
fair, Troberman said.
'Fry the big fish'
Oregon's Measure 3 -- calling for a conviction before confiscation -- took
effect in December.
A short time later, the district attorney in Multnomah County, the county
in which Portland is located, dissolved the forfeiture unit.
The office could no longer afford to run it.
The state had a 94 percent conviction rate of people whose property was
taken, said John Bradley, Multnomah County's first assistant district
attorney, and officials saw forfeiture as a way of taxing criminals.
Although prosecutors in Oregon will try to "fry the big fish," the measure
passed by voters was too broad, Bradley said.
"It virtually eliminated all civil forfeiture in Oregon," he said.
Weirth, of the Eastside Narcotics Task Force, fears the same thing could
happen here.
Any changes Washington makes to it current laws, she said, could signal the
end to her agency's success in keeping drugs out of Eastside schools and
neighborhoods.
"People can differ about the law," Weirth said. "But what worries me is a
lot of people who are trying to change the law don't understand the law."
Newshawk: Jo-D and Tom-E
Pubdate: Tue, 20 Mar 2001
Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer (WA)
Copyright: 2001 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Contact: editpage@seattle-pi.com
Address: P.O. Box 1909, Seattle, WA 98111-1909
Website: Home
Author: Candace Heckman, Seattle Post-intelligencer Reporter
harder for police to confiscate private property, law enforcement agencies
across Washington cheered.
But others, on both a national and local level, insist the fight for
civil-forfeiture reform is far from over.
They think the climate in Washington may be ripe for a citizens initiative,
such as the ones voters in Oregon and Utah overwhelmingly passed last November.
The bill, introduced by Sen. Dow Constantine, D-King, would have changed
the state's civil forfeiture laws by requiring that suspects be convicted
before police and prosecutors take away their homes, cars or cash.
Because most of their forfeited property comes from narcotics dealers,
local authorities contend the new law would have crippled their offensive
strategy in the war on drugs.
The legislation would have hit the Bellevue-based Eastside Narcotics Task
Force particularly hard.
Last year, the task force led the state in forfeiture, taking nearly
$700,000, according to state records. Officers seized $2.6 million in
assets; prosecutors say agencies typically keep about one-third of what
they take.
In Washington, most of the proceeds go back to the law enforcement agency
that seized the property.
The American Civil Liberties Union calls the practice an egregious conflict
of interest.
"To get your stuff back, you have to either hire a lawyer who knows what
he's doing or go plead your case in front of another police officer," said
Seattle lawyer Richard Troberman, a national expert in civil forfeiture law.
"It's like letting the fox guard the hen house," Troberman said.
"They say they're protecting the public from drug dealers, but more and
more often, they're profiting from small-time drug users and people who
grow medical marijuana."
Last year, the Eastside Narcotics Task Force seized $4.5 million worth of
illegal drugs, $3.29 million of which was of marijuana.
Authorities, however, say marijuana trafficking from British Columbia is a
particular problem, and they scoff at accusations that agencies are
targeting petty possession cases.
"They're making people think that if you get caught smoking a joint at
home, the police are going to come and take your house," said Sheila
Weirth, the King County deputy prosecutor assigned to the Eastside
Narcotics Task Force. "I think it's a big misconception."
The Eastside task force has been operating for 20 years and includes 10
officers from Bellevue, Redmond, Issaquah, Kirkland and Mercer Island, as
well as Weirth, a DEA agent and a drug-sniffing black Labrador retriever
named Dollar.
In most instances, the task force seizes personal property, not real
estate, although real estate is always worth more. Last year, the team
seized $1.6 million in real estate, in addition to 41 vehicles, 24 guns and
$437,471 in cash.
While authorities acknowledge that revenue from the forfeitures helps their
departments, taking property seems to punish criminals more than prison terms.
"You tell people that they're going to jail for 24 months and they're like,
'no big deal.' But you take their car away, and it doesn't even have to be
a nice car, they get really, really upset," Weirth said.
Seizing assets right away prevents criminals from transferring their
property while they await trial, Weirth said.
But Troberman said he's seen too many innocent clients spend thousands of
dollars to settle cases or defend themselves.
And that is only if it's worth hiring a lawyer.
"If they take a car and it's worth $1,000," Troberman said, "you can't
effectively hire a lawyer to get it back."
'People despise this'
In the case of forfeiture, rarely has an issue made such strange bedfellows.
Reform supporters range from the ACLU to the National Rifle Association.
And while drug-law reform is traditionally a liberal issue, conservative
Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., who has pushed federal reform for years, called
the world of civil forfeiture "Kafka-esque."
Congress moved last summer to curb forfeiture by federal authorities, whom
defense lawyers say tend to be the biggest foxes of all.
But by the time the bill hit the Senate floor, it was so diluted that some
wondered whether it actually did anything.
Nonetheless, the bill generated a lot of publicity, said Scott Ehlers,
director of research for the Campaign for New Drug Policies in California.
It was Ehlers' group -- a well-funded organization backed by a trio of
investors, including billionaire financier George Soros -- that
successfully pushed the Oregon and Utah initiatives.
The group hasn't yet decided where it will focus its attention next.
But its sights could be set on Washington.
Ehlers said activists in the state support a drive to restrict civil
forfeiture.
"I tell people that this issue is like racial profiling one and a half
years ago," said Gerard Sheehan, the ACLU's Olympia lobbyist.
"People really despise this practice."
Similar efforts to control forfeiture abuses are being made in at least a
dozen other states, from Nevada to New Jersey.
Most states, including Washington, have provisions in their statutes that
protect innocent property owners, such as an oblivious spouse.
But those provisions don't go far enough in making the forfeiture laws
fair, Troberman said.
'Fry the big fish'
Oregon's Measure 3 -- calling for a conviction before confiscation -- took
effect in December.
A short time later, the district attorney in Multnomah County, the county
in which Portland is located, dissolved the forfeiture unit.
The office could no longer afford to run it.
The state had a 94 percent conviction rate of people whose property was
taken, said John Bradley, Multnomah County's first assistant district
attorney, and officials saw forfeiture as a way of taxing criminals.
Although prosecutors in Oregon will try to "fry the big fish," the measure
passed by voters was too broad, Bradley said.
"It virtually eliminated all civil forfeiture in Oregon," he said.
Weirth, of the Eastside Narcotics Task Force, fears the same thing could
happen here.
Any changes Washington makes to it current laws, she said, could signal the
end to her agency's success in keeping drugs out of Eastside schools and
neighborhoods.
"People can differ about the law," Weirth said. "But what worries me is a
lot of people who are trying to change the law don't understand the law."
Newshawk: Jo-D and Tom-E
Pubdate: Tue, 20 Mar 2001
Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer (WA)
Copyright: 2001 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Contact: editpage@seattle-pi.com
Address: P.O. Box 1909, Seattle, WA 98111-1909
Website: Home
Author: Candace Heckman, Seattle Post-intelligencer Reporter
