KANSAS LEGISLATORS LOOK AT DRUG FORFEITURE POLICY

Police in Colby, Kan., invested a comfortable nest egg last year --
$2.1 million seized in a drug case. That is three times what the
10-officer department normally spends in a year.

In fact, a committee has been formed just to help police decide how to
spend the $120,000 in interest the money will bring each year.

For Kansas law enforcement agencies located along an interstate or
busy highway, the war on drugs can be lucrative. Just last week, law
enforcement took more than $800,000 in two seizures on Interstate 70.

But such windfalls are being challenged by a bill moving through the
state Legislature. A hearing is scheduled at 3:30 p.m. today before
the House Judiciary Committee.

The bill would send forfeited drug money to public education instead
of law enforcement.

"The money from seizures should not be going to law enforcement
agencies," said Paul Davis, legislative counsel for the Kansas Bar
Association, which supports the proposed law.

The bill also would require a conviction in most cases before property
could be forfeited.

Kansas law now allows a person's cash and property to be forfeited
without the person being charged with a crime. Law enforcement can
keep up to 85 percent of the proceeds. The district attorney keeps the
rest.

In Missouri, a conviction generally is required to forfeit property,
and forfeited money goes to education. A reform bill sponsored by Sen.
Harry Wiggins, a Kansas City Democrat, would define when property has
been seized and will be debated in a few weeks. State law already
requires forfeited drug money to go to education.

The Kansas bill, sponsored by Rep. Ralph Tanner, a Baldwin City
Republican, places the state in a growing movement of more than a
dozen other states considering reform of their forfeiture laws.

But many in Kansas law enforcement are fighting the bill, saying
police need the money to fight the war on drugs.

"I really believe it will diminish tremendously the number of drug
arrests, and therefore, the number of seizures will tend to bottom
out," said Thomas County Sheriff Tom Jones. "(The lawmakers) need to
leave us...alone and let us do our job."

Some lawmakers and others say, though, that the drug money gives
police a financial motive to be overly aggressive, which can result in
illegal searches.

"We have improperly given incentives to a number of our law
enforcement agencies to devote their time to these endeavors," said
Sen. Ed Pugh, a Wamego Republican and vice chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee. "The asset forfeiture law the way it is now is a
bad incentive for law enforcement."

As an attorney, Pugh said, he handled a case several years ago in
which a man had been arrested for having an ounce of marijuana. Law
enforcement asked the state to forfeit his home and 55 acres, but Pugh
won the case.

Legal experts and criminal defense lawyers point to other cases in
which they say police acted too aggressively.

For example, a Topeka police officer spotted rolling papers often used
in smoking marijuana on the floor of a car during a traffic stop. He
asked the driver if he could search the car. The driver refused but
the officer searched anyway, finding a small amount of marijuana and
$573 in cash. A judge suppressed evidence because the search was
illegal, said Michael Kaye, a Washburn University law professor who
worked on the case in 1997.

Robert Eye, a Topeka defense lawyer who won a case several years ago
in which a federal appeals court found that the Highway Patrol
conducted an illegal search, worries that huge windfalls force police
to walk a tightrope. "Those incentives can sometimes cause even
diligent law enforcement officers to cut corners on certain things
such as defendants' rights," Eye said.

As an example, he cited police who routinely troll for cars with
out-of-state license plates.

In Hays, law enforcement officers acknowledge they regularly patrol
motel parking lots at night with drug-sniffing dogs.

That's how the Ellis County Drug Task Force found $1 million in cash
in one case last year. The task force turned the money over to the
federal Drug Enforcement Administration and could receive up to
$800,000 back. The federal government keeps the rest for processing.

Law enforcement officials point out that courts have held such
searches to be legal.

"It is a routine patrol procedure we do," Ellis County Undersheriff
Bruce Hertel said.

Police in Kansas are careful about the way they deal with drug
seizures, said Kyle Smith, director of public and governmental affairs
for the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, which opposes the proposed
law. "Obviously there are concerns about conflicts of interest," Smith
said. "I think the Kansas law has a lot of safeguards."

Extra Spending Money

Many law enforcement officials say the forfeiture money allows them to
spend money on things they could never afford otherwise.

At $500,000, the Thomas County sheriff's forfeiture fund exceeds his
annual budget of $400,000. A sheriff's deputy seized $400,000 more
last week.

Jones said he liked the leverage that drug money can give him. He has
paid two officers' salaries, and he donated $3,000 to "Hooked on
Fishing" a drug education program sponsored by the American
Sportsfishing Association.

Jones could not remember who contacted him about the program or
whether it was an ongoing program in his community. "I was sold on it
as being a worthy project, an educational-based project," Jones said.

Osage County Sheriff Ken Lippert said he too has spent forfeiture
money on salaries but has found a way around state law, which
prohibits the money being spent on such recurring expenses as
salaries. Lippert uses federal grants to pay a portion of new
deputies' salaries, and then identifies forfeiture money as matching
funds for the grant.

Lippert also spent $868 on 700 coloring books and crayons for drug
education, and said he buys key chains and other trinkets to give
students when he talks to them about drugs and crime. "It's a lot
cheaper crime prevention than $55,000 a year to hire an officer to
have police presence," he said.

Lippert said that if the Kansas bill passes, he would send seized
money to a federal law enforcement agency as a way to circumvent state
law and keep most of the drug money.

"We will still get the dope off the street, but we are going to file
federal cases instead of state cases if they want to give the money to
the schools or somebody else," Lippert said. "We are not going to work
for it and not get it."

The Garden City Police Department has been able to spend thousands of
dollars in drug money to equip a Special Enforcement Team -- also
known as a SWAT team -- and to buy two dogs and equipment such as a
remote control door opening system to release the dogs from a vehicle.

Lt. Gibson Auten said the SWAT team was created about six or seven
years ago to help in hostage and barricade situations and to serve
high-risk warrants when wanted people might be armed with guns. It
also is called when someone is attempting suicide.

Auten acknowledged that police have been lucky that the team is not
often needed. The last hostage situation in Garden City -- a
husband-wife domestic situation -- was two years ago. The last time
they served a high-risk warrant was November.

But he said the specialized guns, riot helmets, uniforms and other
equipment keep officers safe. "We may not use them a lot, but when you
need them, they are very important to have," Auten said. He added the
team has only fired once since its inception. That was to kill a
charging dog.

Tanner said some of the spending by law enforcement agencies angers
him. "That makes me sick," he said. "I don't think they should have
had the money in the first place."

Police should not be able to seize money for forfeiture from someone
who isn't even convicted, Tanner said. "I'm talking about civil rights."

But sometimes it's impossible to obtain a conviction in a drug case,
said Smith of the KBI. "I don't see why we would let drug dealers keep
their money whether they are convicted or not," Smith said.