SEIZE FIRST, CONVICT LATER

Months or years before some suspected Scott County drug dealers get
their day in criminal court, their seized property and cash already
belong to law enforcement agencies.

One in four Scott County residents who had property and money seized
by local police never faced any criminal charges, a Quad-City Times
investigation of court records shows.

That one in four includes those who are outright innocent, those for
whom police cannot prove criminal charges and those who don't have
enough money to fight the system.

During a four-year period, Scott County police agencies seized and
kept $135,099.60 in cash and thousands of dollars worth of property in
103 cases that never found their way into criminal court.

Scott County prosecutors defend the numbers, arguing that the system
allows them to take away the profit motive of drug dealing and other
criminal enterprises even in cases that would be difficult or
impossible to prosecute.

Quad-City police say civil forfeiture laws allow them to take profits
away from small-time dealers while offering those dealers leniency in
criminal court in exchange for cooperation in bigger drug cases.

But critics of such laws say the system punishes people by taking
their money and property whether or not they have been charged with a
crime. Oregon voters decided last year that prosecutors must win
criminal convictions before property and cash can be forfeited to police.

Advocates of reform also argue that allowing law enforcement agencies
to keep seized money and property encourages arrests based on money,
not public safety.

The Cases

A five-month Times investigation of 412 forfeiture cases handled in
Scott County between Jan. 1, 1996, and November 2000, showed that
about 25 percent, or 103 cases, involved no criminal charges.

Money seized and kept in those cases made up nearly 18 percent of the
$763,221.74 that was seized in Scott County and then distributed to
area police departments, the Iowa Department of Justice and the Scott
County Attorney's office during that time period.

Police also returned $91,444.21 in 62 cases for which forfeiture
claims could not be proven.

In some cases, like that of former Davenport man Ronald Kuhl, those
who did face criminal action were not charged until months or years
after their cash and property were surrendered to police.

Under Iowa law, police can seize money and property suspected of being
used in, or resulting from, criminal acts. Those assets, often used as
evidence, then can be kept for crime-fighting purposes if law
enforcement agencies win forfeiture judgments in civil court. A
criminal conviction is not required before money and property can be
forfeited.

On May 27, 1998, Quad-City Metropolitan Enforcement Group, or MEG,
agents seized 28 grams of methamphetamine, plastic packaging, two
safes and $11,498 from Kuhl's Davenport apartment while serving a
search warrant.

In August of that year, Scott County District Judge David Sivright
ordered the money forfeited. But Kuhl was not criminally charged until
Feb. 14, 2001 -- 21/2 years after the cash and property were turned
over to police -- when a federal grand jury in Davenport indicted him
on meth delivery charges.

Critics of civil forfeiture laws say cases like Kuhl's -- and of others
who never face criminal charges -- show a flaw in the system.

"You can be acquitted, never charged or never have your day in court,
and that doesn't change things under the forfeiture statute," said
Randall Wilson, legal director of the Iowa Civil Liberties Union.
"Property is considered forfeited until you go into a court with an
attorney and prove otherwise."

Invisible Wall

Scott County Attorney Bill Davis said he would like to see criminal
convictions every time property or money is seized.

"But they are separate issues," he said. "To seek and win a criminal
conviction, we have to be able to prove our case beyond a reasonable
doubt.

"We may have a weak criminal case based on that standard," Davis
added. "Our standard of proof in the civil forfeiture cases is a lower
hurdle -- preponderance of the evidence -- and we may be able to argue
that but not the other."

Davis said he keeps an invisible wall between his prosecutors who
handle criminal cases and Assistant Scott County Attorney Ted
Priester, who handles civil forfeiture cases. The barrier ensures that
assets can't be used as bargaining tools for suspects to "buy their
way out of criminal cases," he said.

"I rarely have anything to do with prosecutors on the cases," Priester
said. "I don't know if the people in my cases are charged with a crime
or what happened with the criminal charges. I'm concerned with the
property and the evidence that shows whether it may have been used in
the commission of the crime."

Assistant Attorney General Doug Marek, who specializes in Iowa
forfeiture laws, said his office recommends the invisible-wall
approach used by Davis to avoid the use of seized money as a
plea-bargaining chip.

He also said property owners have the ability to contest forfeitures
in open court.

"Forfeiture is not based on criminal convictions," Marek said. "But
you still have to have the evidence that the money or property was
used in the furtherance of criminal activity. And if that case is
weak, people have the opportunity to point that out in court."

Informants

While Davis' office keeps a barrier between civil forfeiture and
criminal cases, some police and defense attorneys say the division is
not so clear on the street.

Davenport police Lt. Scott Sievert, who heads his department's gang
and vice units, said some people who lose property through forfeiture
cases do not face criminal charges because they agree to cooperate
with police in other cases.

Davenport defense attorney, David Treimer, who specializes in drug
cases, agreed.

"I've seen that before -- where someone doesn't contest their
forfeiture and agrees to turn state's evidence," he said. "To avoid
prosecution, they become snitches and work the street for police."

In some cases, civil forfeiture laws can allow police to take away the
dealers' profits while allowing police and prosecutors latitude to cut
deals with them in the criminal arena, said Davenport Police Chief
Mike Bladel.

In one case, MEG agents seized $700 cash and two handguns along with
about $1,500 worth of meth and about $100 worth of marijuana from a
Davenport man in August 1998. The man did not contest the seizure and
avoided criminal charges by becoming an informant for the agency.

Sievert said that same man now helps build Davenport police drug cases
as well.

"One of the heaviest criticisms of law enforcement is that we pick on
the small-time dealers," Bladel said. "But I think this shows us
getting them to assist in the prosecution of cases at a higher level."

Reform

Regardless of whether they agree to cooperate with police, suspects
should not have to relinquish property unless prosecutors prove they
committed crimes, advocates of reform say.

Voters in Oregon showed they agreed with that philosophy in November
2000, backing a measure to amend their state constitution to require
criminal convictions before forfeiture cases can go forward.

Prior to the amendment, Oregon law allowed police agencies to keep
seized cash and property if they could prove they had "probable cause"
to believe it was used in, or obtained from, criminal acts.

Phil Lemman, director of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, said
the amendment also restricts law enforcement agencies from obtaining
more than 25 percent of forfeited cash. That money only can be used
for the legal costs of pursuing the forfeitures, he said.

The rest of the money is earmarked for drug treatment and education
programs, he said.

Similar reforms have been approved in Utah.

Under Iowa law, police agencies and prosecutors are allowed to use all
of the seized money for law enforcement programs, including training
and national seminars, as long as the programs are not a regular part
of the agencies' annual budgets.

"The thinking by supporters of (Oregon) reform was that the past
system encouraged a 'bounty-hunting' philosophy in law enforcement
where police were going after cases based on the cash or assets they
involved," Lemman said. "The thinking was that police were pursuing
cases based on monetary value rather than public-safety value."

Sievert, whose vice and gang units often cooperate with MEG on drug
cases, denied that county law enforcement agencies seek a profit from
forfeiture cases.

"Big seizures are nice, and we're happy when we get them," Sievert
said. "But that's not what we're looking for."

Overall, Scott County and state law enforcement agencies were awarded
$763,221.74 in seized cash between Jan. 1, 1996, and November 2000,
court records show.

Almost 70 percent of that money, or $528,196.39, was awarded to the
Davenport Police Department or to MEG. Davenport's department handled
196 seizure cases during that time period for which it was awarded
$140,472.47. MEG handled 184 cases, bringing in $387,723.92.

Bladel said those totals don't reflect the number of cases in which
police make drug arrests but seize no property or cash.

According to city records, Davenport police handled 4,184 drug cases
between 1996 and 2000, meaning they seized money and property in about
5 percent of the cases.

Bladel defended the way area law enforcement agencies use seized
money, arguing the community benefits from the extra training for
officers and crime-fighting equipment the money buys.

But a political organizer who helped lead forfeiture reform in Oregon
said the system provides police departments with a tool to pad their
budgets at the expense of people never convicted of crimes.

A review of court records by the Oregonians for Property Protection,
an organization that led the charge for reform there, showed that more
than 70 percent of all people in Oregon who lost property and cash in
forfeiture cases never faced criminal charges, said Geoff Sugerman, a
spokesman for the group.

The State of Oregon could provide no official figures as it does not
track forfeiture cases versus criminal charges, Lemman said. Neither
does the State of Iowa.

"The way asset forfeiture is done in many places throughout the
country is unfair," Sugerman said. "It was time to raise the bar in
Oregon, and it needs to be lifted elsewhere."