TOUGHER LAWS NEEDED ON FORFEITURES IN DRUG ARRESTS

The experience in the Missouri General Assembly this year is typical of the
way many lawmakers deal with legislation related to police seizure of cash
and property in drug arrests. The bill failed, in part because of lobbying
by law enforcement.

The measure, which would have required police to observe the intent of
state law in such seizures, must be revived and passed by the legislature
next year.

The legislation should not be necessary. But it is because too many of
those society has placed in charge of enforcing the law have found a way to
evade the law when dealing with cash and property taken in drug cases.

Officers, under current Missouri law, are required to go to court, where
seized items are supposed to go to education officials in most instances.
In a series of stories last year The Kansas City Star disclosed that law
enforcement officers were not following the statute.

Instead of seeing to it that cash and property ultimately went to education
as state lawmakers had intended, the police were turning items over to
federal law enforcement authorities. After taking possession, the federal
government -- which has looser laws on seizures than most state statutes --
returned up to 80 percent of the materials to the police.

That is wrong on two counts.

Law enforcement should never benefit directly from materials it seizes. It
is up to the executive and legislative branches to allocate funding for
public safety. Further, this conflict of interest erodes public confidence
in law enforcement.

Second, education is deprived of additional funding it is designated, by
law, to receive.

The situation in Missouri is not unique. In recent weeks further
investigation by The Kansas City Star revealed similar abuses are occurring
in other states.

Action is being taken in some places to clarify the laws to prevent abuses.
The final solution may have to come at the federal level.

U.S. Rep. Karen McCarthy, a Kansas City Democrat, said recently that
members of her staff are studying ways to halt the transfers. A spokeswoman
for House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, a St. Louis Democrat, said his
office is also seeking ways to curb the practice.

Police contend they don't actually seize the property but merely hold it
for federal authorities. This is a shameful use of semantics to make highly
questionable conduct look less reprehensible.

Individuals and groups who want a good law in Missouri should rally around
legislation similar to that considered in this year's General Assembly. The
laws about procedures for handling seized property should be clear at both
the state and federal level.

Constitutional safeguards against illegal searches and seizures have not
been officially repealed, and law enforcement should not be able to repeal
the process by fancy footwork.

This newspaper supports strong law enforcement efforts against illegal
drugs and those who traffic in them, but we don't support strategies that
permit law enforcement to act as if the ends justify the means.