FORFEITURE LAW PUT ON HOLD BY COURT

A voter-approved ballot initiative that rewrites Utah forfeiture law will
not become effective today as planned because a federal judge sided with
law enforcement agencies Monday, saying the new law needs further review.

Initiative B -- the Utah Property Protection Act -- was put on hold for at
least 10 days when Chief U.S. District Judge Dee Benson signed a temporary
restraining order Monday. That action gives state attorneys time to
organize arguments in favor of the initiative, which voters approved by
more than 2-to-1 in November.

Supporters of the measure say it curbs the power of police to seize property.

"There is an ongoing attitude within law enforcement that doesn't care
about citizens' rights or property. They just want a source of money for
which they have no accountability," said Janet Jenson, who helped write
Initiative B. She anticipates the measure will eventually become law.

Benson agreed, saying it is "unlikely" he will extend the restraining order.

That means Initiative B is apt to become law on March 30. But that could
jeopardize up to $5 million of annual federal funding to Utah's law
enforcement community, said an attorney representing Salt Lake County
Sheriff Aaron Kennard, who joined seven other law enforcement officials in
filing suit to block the initiative.

"The voters of Utah may have to reap what they have sown," said Deputy Salt
Lake County Attorney Clark Harms, who hopes the restraining order becomes a
permanent injunction.

Harms says Initiative B violates federal law because it requires that any
property seized jointly by Utah and federal agents remain in state control
unless a trial judge rules otherwise.

The measure "sets up a scheme where federal law enforcement is not possible
within the state of Utah," Harms said. "When it is impossible to comply
with both state and federal law, federal law should trump."

And a ballot measure requirement that all forfeiture assets go into a state
education fund puts money shared by the federal government at risk, Harms
said. Federal guidelines require that shared forfeiture funds be used
exclusively for law enforcement pur- poses.

Benson used an analogy to characterize the dilemma created by Initiative B:
"Picture a cow," he said. "You've got the federal government pulling on the
horns and the state pulling on the tail. Somebody has to prevail."

But there actually is no conflict, argued Assistant Utah Attorney General
Mark Ward, who said any state judge asked to rule in a forfeiture case
would acknowledge the supremacy of federal law.

"How does this state statute mandate noncompliance with federal forfeiture
law?" Ward asked, contending the law does not do so. "That's the $64,000
question."