DRUG PROPERTY FORFEITURE DOESN'T NEED OLYMPIA 'FIX'

Whoever thought Republican Sen. Val Stevens and the American Civil
Liberties Union would be on the same side? Their joint venture to
dismantle the state's property forfeiture laws used in drug seizures
gives new meaning to the phrase "opposites attract."

Ultra conservatives and ultra liberals who have signed on to Senate
Bill 5935, and its sister bill House Bill 1995, are on the prowl to
stop what they see as the trampling of due process when law
enforcement seizes assets believed to be purchased with drug money.

However, while pushing the bill under the guise of property rights,
they're actually trampling all over due process that already exists in
our judicial system.

Current law requires law enforcement to provide probable cause to
seize items. It's not like a law officer can walk through a home after
a drug bust and say, "Hey, a Nintendo. My kid could use one of those."
Officers have to have solid reason to believe the items (such as
expensive cars and electronic gadgets found along with drugs in
dilapidated home) were purchased with drug money.

Next comes a judicial review in order to even declare the items
forfeited. Once that happens, people still have 45 to 90 days to
request a hearing and claim the belongings.

Many law enforcement officials have already argued against the bill.
If passed, it would destroy most departments' narcotics units because
the money seized in sizeable drug busts is used to fund the programs,
officials said. While, it's valid to argue the negative impact the
bill would have on departments, that's not enough.

However, opponents stand on solid ground when they argue that the
Legislature is overstepping its bounds. As Snohomish County Sheriff
Rick Bart pointed out, the bill proposes creating a new state
committee to "review all asset forfeiture proceedings to ensure fairness."

"Who is this oversight committee going to be? How are they going to be
financed?" Bart asks. "It sound like more bureaucracy to me."

If defendants in such cases believe they have been treated unfairly,
they should appeal through the court system. The opportunity is
already available to them. The Legislature has no place usurping
judicial authority by creating a committee to act as judge and jury.

Our Legislature is famous for handing down unfunded mandates. This
would end up being a version of one of them. Do lawmakers really want
law enforcement agencies to shut down their narcotics divisions? It's
unlikely legislators plan to step up and offer more money from the
state budget to compensate.

The bill is filled with unrealistic thinking. Blocking property
seizures until a conviction will allow defendants to pass the property
on to someone else so they can retrieve it when they get out of
prison. Then there's the argument that law enforcement shouldn't
benefit from the forfeited assets. Who else should? Why shouldn't drug
dealers foot the bill instead of taxpayers?

The Legislature is already looking at bills to reduce sentences for
small-time drug users and put them in treatment instead. But
small-time drug users shouldn't be confused with big-time drug dealers
who prey on our communities.

And the Legislature has no business preying on the judicial system.