BILL WOULD END SEIZURE OF DRUG SUSPECTS' ASSETS

Lawmakers representing a wide swath of the political spectrum say
they want to end the state program that allows police to seize cars,
boats, cash and homes from suspected drug dealers and use the assets
to enforce drug laws.

In the past eight years, drug-related property seizures have brought
in more than $43.5 million to local police departments and state
anti-drug programs.

Senate Bill 5935, which is to be introduced today, would allow assets
to be taken only after a conviction. It would also require that
property taken by police be spent only on drug-treatment programs,
not law-enforcement agencies.

The bill is being promoted by the ACLU, which has long objected to
the property-forfeiture laws.

"It represents one more facet of a cancer on our society - the
perversion of our justice system under our drug laws," said Gerard
Sheehan, a lobbyist for the state chapter of the American Civil
Liberties Union.

Law-enforcement officials were quick to condemn the proposal. They
say that losing property is a suitable punishment for those suspected
of drug-related crimes. And the money has become essential for police
departments trying to stay on top of rising drug crimes while dealing
with tighter budgets.

"That'd put us out of business," said Tacoma police spokesman Jim Mattheis.

Lawmakers, however, say police departments have become overly
dependent on money from drug-related seizures. They think it's unfair
for police to take property from someone who has not been convicted
of a crime.

"Everybody deserves their day in court," said Dan Swecker,
R-Rochester, one of 10 co-sponsors of the bill.

Washington's seizure law dates from the 1970s. But it was changes in
1992 that made it easier for police to take property and required
detailed reporting of property forfeitures.

The law requires that 10 percent go to the state for a special
drug-education account. Police can keep the other 90 percent to help
pay to enforce drug laws. Cars seized are sometimes used by
undercover officers. Other assets are sold at auction with the
proceeds funding department operations.

The law allows police to seize property if there is probable cause to
believe it was used, or was intended to be used, in the manufacture,
sale or shipment of drugs. Police can also take any asset that they
suspect was paid for with earnings from drug sales.

Former Spokane Sheriff Larry Erickson said yesterday his department
once took a Hawaii condominium and a yacht from a man he described as
a cocaine broker. No drugs were actually found on the man's property.

"It's a penalty against those people who are preying on our
children," said Erickson, executive director of the Washington
Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. "One of the best tools we
have is to take assets that were gotten illegally."

He said that drug dealers have told him that losing their assets
hurts more than short stays in prison.

In recent years there has been a backlash led by civil libertarians
on the left and right.

It's also a major thrust of the drug-reform movement, the effort to
reduce criminal penalties on drug use.

Voters in Oregon and Utah approved citizens initiatives in November
rewriting property-forfeiture laws.

The Oregon measure amended the state constitution to require that a
property owner be convicted of a crime before property can be seized.
The assets would go to treatment and drug-education programs, not law
enforcement.

In Utah, the initiative requires prosecutors to show "clear and
convincing evidence" that property was involved in crime.

The measures were funded by some of the same people who have financed
initiatives here and elsewhere to legalize marijuana for medicinal
purposes.

The ACLU-backed bill here includes some of the Senate's most liberal
and most conservative members - from Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, to
Sen. Val Stevens, R-Arlington.

"I think there's pretty widespread concern over pre-conviction asset
forfeiture," said Sen. Dow Constantine, D-West Seattle, prime sponsor
of the bill. "It just rubs people the wrong way."

His proposal would require that before property can be taken, someone
must be convicted of a crime and that the property be found "by clear
and convincing evidence to have been instrumental in committing or
facilitating the crime."

The state drug-education fund would still get the 10 percent required
under current law. But the remaining money would have to be used
exclusively for drug treatment.

Stevens said she thinks the current law leads police to temptation.
She says they could be making arrests because of the assets they
could get.

"You are placing law enforcement in the position of tempting
themselves with what they maybe aren't able to resist," she said.
"I'm not accusing them. I'm just saying they could be tempted."

Sheehan, the ACLU lobbyist, called money from seized assets "loot."
He told a House committee yesterday that the money is being "derived
from theft." That angered law-enforcement officials. "We're not
corrupt. We're not thieves," Erickson told members of the State
Government Committee. "We don't sneak around in the middle of the
night taking your property."

King County Sheriff's spokesman Sgt. John Urquhart said in an
interview that police do like to go after the money --- but not for
what Stevens thinks.

"Is it tempting sometimes to target drug dealers who have a lot of
money? It is," he said. "But not to get the money. It's because you
can hit them where it hurts. You can take away the motive for them to
be in business."

Information from Seattle Times computer-assisted reporting specialist
Justin Mayo was used in this report.