BILL SEEKS TO MODIFY ASSET FORFEITURE LAWS

Law enforcement officials critical of effort to raise standard of proof
and put other restrictions on property seizures

On Monday, the Assembly Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on Senate
Bill 36, bringing Nevada one step closer to being the latest Western
state to modify its asset forfeiture laws.

"Representative Henry Hyde's asset forfeiture reform law was really the
impetus behind all of this," said Scott Ehlers, director of research for
the Santa Monica, Calif.-based Campaign for New Drug Policies. "I'm glad
to see that legislatures are taking this up."

The federal Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, authored by Hyde,
R-Ill., requires judges to appoint counsel for indigent defendants in
certain forfeiture cases. In addition, it forces the government to
return seized property if the claimant has substantial ties to the
community and it creates hardship to the claimant.

In contrast, Senate Bill 36, sponsored by Sen. Mark James, R-Las Vegas,
raises the standard of proof required for an asset forfeiture to "clear
and convincing," bars agencies from spending forfeited funds until
they've accounted for them and earmarks 70 percent of forfeiture
proceeds for local school districts.

That didn't stop some law enforcement critics from accusing James of
trying to make life easier for "drug dealers and pimps," during a
February hearing, although such talk has largely died down.

"I personally feel that the bill, by raising the standard the district
attorney's office has to prove a case, will benefit those people who
have been accused of and who have been convicted of a crime," said Clark
County Deputy District Attorney Bernard Zadrowski, who leads the
forfeiture unit. "But I think Senator James is an extremely capable
person. With his leadership we're traveling down the right path and he's
got good intentions."

There have been recent forfeiture law changes already in Washington,
Utah and Oregon.

On April 16, the Washington Legislature approved a bill barring
prosecutors from taking the property of marijuana users unless the drug
is grown for commercial purposes, the police find five or more plants or
1 pound of pot and a "substantial nexus" exists between the property and
the marijuana.

In addition, the bill gives claimants who successfully contest a
forfeiture the right to attorney's fees.

A spokesman for the bill's sponsor, state Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson,
D-Seattle, said he expected Washington Gov. Gary Locke to sign the bill
by Saturday.

In Oregon and Utah, voters approved sweeping changes to each state's
asset forfeiture statutes last November.

Sixty-seven percent of Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 3,
requiring prosecutors to convict a defendant of a crime before they can
take his property. That's a change local criminal defense attorney
Steven Wolfson would like to see enacted here.

"I think that fairness dictates that one should not lose their property
until it has been proven they have done something wrong," said Wolfson.
"It's putting the cart before the horse."

But Joshua Marquis, district attorney of Clatsop County and president of
the Oregon District Attorneys Association, had a starkly different view
of the measure.

"The voters got snookered in Oregon, as they did in Utah," Marquis said.
"What's going to happen is that it's going to be more profitable to be a
drug dealer.

"Asset forfeiture reform is really an attempt by those who believe that
drugs should be legalized to destroy the financing for law enforcement,"
Marquis said. "The reality is the people who have the most to lose from
asset forfeiture are drug dealers, because drug dealing is a business."

He added that while a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the
initiative failed at the trial court level several weeks ago, the matter
is on appeal.

Utah's Initiative B, otherwise known as the Utah Property Protection Act
of 2000, requires prosecutors to file forfeiture complaints within 90
days after the property has been seized or return the items. In
addition, courts are allowed to appoint attorneys for indigent claimants
and local agencies can't share their forfeiture proceeds with federal
authorities without a state court's approval.

Salt Lake City Sheriff Aaron Kennard is currently challenging the
constitutionality of the measure in federal court.