STATE SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS FORFEITURE LAW

The Oregon Supreme Court today upheld restrictions that voters
approved on police seizures of property and cash in connection with
illegal activity.

Voters restricted police agencies from using civil courts to sell
seized property unless it was tied to a criminal conviction of the
property owner. The measure also directed proceeds from such sales to
drug trreatment, rather than police operations.

Police initiated 1,526 seizures in 2000, but after the measure
passed, only 389 in 2001.

The challenge was filed in 2001 by the Lincoln Interagency Narcotics
Team. A Marion County judge upheld the measure in 2001, but a divided
Oregon Court of Appeals overturned it in 2003.

The high court has been asked several times in the past eight years
to rule on a legal challenge to an initiative based on the
constitutional ban on too many unrelated changes contained in a single measure.

Unlike several previous decisions, a divided court decided that by
restricting forfeitures and redirecting the proceeds, the measure did
not violate the ban.

"Not only do the people wish to be assured that forfeitures are
reined in, they shall encourage it by removing the carrot which
otherwise would tempt the two political branches of government to
treat the criminal law as a revenue-raising source," Justice Michael
Gillette wrote in the 4-3 decision.

But the dissenters, led by Justice Rives Kistler, said the
multiple-amendment ban "should not expand and contract like an
accordion from one case to the next."

Justice Robert Durham sided with the majority but wrote his own opinion.

The court struck down four other measures in the past eight years,
based on the multiple-amendment ban.

"We always knew it was not an easy case," said Rob Bovett, legal
counsel for the narcotics team. "But I was not expecting the Supreme
Court to be as divided as badly as they were."

Geoff Sugerman of Silverton, a political consultant who worked on the
2000 campaign, hailed the decision.

"This case was all about where the money goes," he said.

The court's decision in effect nullifies much of a compromise bill
passed by the 2005 Legislature.

The compromise was negotiated by law-enforcement officials and the
American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, which were on opposite
sides of Measure 3.

The new law, which Gov. Ted Kulongoski signed, retained the
connection between criminal convictions and civil forfeitures before
police can sell seized property or keep confiscated cash.

For houses and other real property, the legal standard for seizure
was "clear and convincing evidence" that they were connected to the
crime that the owner is convicted of, or to a similar crime.

For cash and other property, the legal standard for seizure was a
lesser "preponderance of the evidence."

It allowed some of the proceeds from seized property to go to other
purposes, such as cleanups of illegal drug labs, drug courts and
relief nurseries.

It also extended authority for criminal forfeitures, which are not
affected by today's court decision.

"My immediate plan is to review the opinion closely, figure out what
the differences are between the constitional measure and this law,
and go from there," said Dave Fidanque, executive director of the
ACLU of Oregon.

Bovett, who also took part in the negotiations, said it's back to the
drawing board. He said there is little the Legislature can do short
of referring a new measure to voters.

"At this point, the Legislature can only fashion a Band-Aid to heal
the damage caused by an out-of-state consortium of billionaires bent
on drug legalization, under the guise of protecting individual
rights," Bovett said.

Bovett referred to the bankrolling of the 2000 campaign by New York
financier George Soros.

Oregon originally passed a forfeiture law in 1989 that allowed police
to have "reasonable cause" that property was connected to a crime
before seizing it and selling it. Critics said the standard allowed
police too much latitude in seizing property even if owners were
never convicted of a related crime.