BALLOT INITIATIVES SEEK TO CHANGE FORFEITURE LAWS IN THREE STATES

If lawmakers can't fix the forfeiture mess, then maybe voters can. At least
that's the hope of activists and volunteers who have placed voter
initiatives on the Nov. 7 ballots in three states to reform the way
property seized in drug busts and traffic stops is confiscated. The
initiatives in Utah, Oregon and Massachusetts would dramatically reduce the
opportunity for law enforcement to violate the civil liberties of innocent
victims of forfeiture, supporters say. The ballot measures would, in
effect, require law enforcement to prove that a crime had occurred before
property could be forfeited. And drug money, instead of going back to
police, would be sent to a public education fund in Utah and drug treatment
funds in Oregon and Massachusetts.

Both supporters and opponents see the initiatives as a skirmish line -- if
even one of the three measures passes, the forfeiture battle could spread
quickly to other states.

"If we are successful in making the changes, we will force the rest of the
country, including the federal government, to begin putting in place the
checks and balances that are lacking," said state Rep. Floyd Prozanski of
Oregon.

Concern about forfeitures has been growing in many states in recent months.
In May, The Kansas City Star published a series of articles showing that
police across the country were working with federal agencies to evade their
own state forfeiture laws.

Most state laws prevent police departments from directly benefiting from
drug money they seize, out of fear that it could lead to abuses. But The
Star found police often simply hand off drug money they seize to federal
agencies, which keep part of it and give the rest back to police. In
addition to preventing police from getting drug money back from federal
agencies, all three ballot initiatives address concerns that police are
violating civil liberties by conducting illegal seizures and using racial
profiling.

Those issues normally should be dealt with through state legislatures but
they are so controversial that politicians are at a stalemate, said
Prozanski, a Democrat who in recent years failed to get a reform bill
through his legislature.

The voter initiative appears to be the only option, he said. But law
enforcement officials in each of the states are fighting back. They believe
the initiatives would end property forfeitures and greatly hamper their
ability to fight the war on drugs.

They also say that the donors who are funding the initiative campaigns have
an ulterior motive -- to legalize drugs.

Three out-of-state tycoons have donated more than $1.25 million to the
three campaigns: New Yorker George Soros, a billionaire and philanthropist;
Arizonan John Sperling, founder of the University of Phoenix; and Ohioan
Peter Lewis, an insurance magnate. But a political consultant for Lewis
said the three donors have no hidden agenda. "None of them have supported
drug legalization in this country," Sam Vagenas said.

Instead, the initiatives are a response by the donors to the costly failure
that the war on drugs has become, said Ethan Nadelman, an adviser to Soros
on drug policy.

"What they all have in common is they hate the drug war," Nadelman said.
"George Soros sees it very much as a human rights issue." Charlie Evans, a
political consultant to the opponents of the Utah initiative, said he
believes that the three states are a testing ground for the financiers.

"If they have success here or in the other states, you'll see it filed in
20 states next year," Evans said.

The three initiatives are similar in many ways: All require that drug money
seized by local police and then forfeited by the federal government to be
deposited in state funds rather than returned to police.

All carry penalties for not following the law. In Massachusetts, it would
be a crime.

All increase the burden of evidence in order to forfeit money. Both sides
agree that in practice a conviction would be required. All require detailed
reporting of forfeitures.

In Utah and Oregon, the initiatives would require a court order before drug
money could be transferred to a federal agency. Supporters think the
initiatives have solid public support in all three states, each of which
requires a simple majority for passage. Massachusetts, however, requires a
voter turnout of at least 30 percent.

Utah A recent newspaper poll in Utah showed 58 percent of voters statewide
would vote in favor of the initiative with 12 percent opposed. Twenty-one
percent were unsure.

However, all major candidates for governor and attorney general oppose
Initiative B.

Evans, the opponents' consultant, warned that if the initiative passes, it
could become a huge detriment to forfeitures in the state. "It would so
encumber the process with extra so-called protections and extra loopholes,
it would make forfeiture very significantly, much, much harder to do,"
Evans said. "In the end the money that is realized from the sale of the
assets would be less than a tenth of what it is today." But one supporter,
Randy Horiuchi, disputed that conclusion. "There is nothing that our
initiative does to hamper their ability to take property," said Horiuchi, a
former Salt Lake County commissioner and son of a police veteran. "We did
make it so they are going to have a tougher burden to prove but, my word,
that is due process." Utah is the only state where law enforcement has
organized a campaign against the initiative. But the Coalition to Stop Drug
Dealer Profits has raised only about $15,000 compared with Utahns for
Property Protection, which has more than $560,000.

Oregon Harry Detwiler, a 67-year-old retired schoolteacher, has become the
poster boy for the Oregon Property Protection Act of 2000. Three years ago,
a sheriff's task force in Medford and federal agents searched Detwiler's
home and seized $35,000 from a safe but found no drugs. Detwiler never was
charged with a crime, and he had receipts to show where the money had come
from. But the federal government kept the money anyway because Detwiler
missed a deadline for filing a claim. A lawyer has taken Detwiler's case
pro bono, and it is on appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Certainly, this is America," Detwiler said. "Little did I know." The
Oregonians for Property Protection campaign is using Detwiler to show how
abusive forfeiture can be, although it's unclear how the initiative would
have affected his case.

Even though his sister was murdered by a drug dealer in the 1970s, Rep.
Prozanski believes his state's forfeiture laws lack protection for Oregonians.

"The people should be held accountable, but we have a duty to see that
government has proper checks and balances," Prozanski said. "The whole
credibility of our justice system is shaken."

Law enforcement officials said that if the initiative wins, it will
irreparably harm an important law enforcement tool.

"There would be no more forfeitures by the drug task forces in (Oregon),"
said Lt. Jim Anderson, a member of the Jackson County Narcotics Enforcement
Team, the drug task force in southwest Oregon that was involved in the
Detwiler case.

"There would be nothing to motivate us," Anderson said. "There would be no
rewards for doing this."

Massachusetts Instead of focusing on forfeiture reform, supporters in
Massachusetts are stumping for the need to treat drug abuse and make
convicted drug dealers pay for it.

"Drug money for drug treatment. That seems to be working," said Al Gordon,
spokesman for the Massachusetts Coalition for Fair Treatment. That's the
campaign strategy, but the initiative's bottom line is forfeiture reform.
District attorneys and law enforcement recognize that and staunchly oppose it.

Under the initiative, drug money forfeited under state law would go to drug
treatment instead of to police and district attorneys, as it does now. The
measure would not prohibit police from seeking to transfer drug money to
federal agencies -- but when the money comes back, it would go to drug
treatment, not police.

In June, the state's 11 district attorneys and the Massachusetts Chiefs of
Police Association filed a lawsuit asking the Supreme Judicial Court to
rule that the measure was unconstitutional and should be removed from the
ballot.

Last Monday, the court ruled that the initiative can remain on the ballot.
The court said it can't actually rule on the content of the initiative
unless it passes.

Two of the initiative's most outspoken critics, Middlesex County District
Attorney Martha Coakley and Geline Williams, executive director of the
Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, did not return telephone
calls seeking comment.

Deena Whitfield, chairwoman of the Coalition for Fair Treatment, said law
enforcement and district attorneys have had years to try to correct the
drug problem but have failed.