JUDGE: DA MUST ANSWER QUESTIONS

A federal judge has ordered Muskogee County District Attorney John
David Luton and an investigator to answer questions about storage of
seized items. "If defendants do not maintain inventory logs or some
other means of tracking the disposition of seized property, then
plaintiff is entitled to inspect the facilities so she (plaintiff) may
discover the process," states an order signed by U.S. District
Magistrate Judge Kimberly West.

The order was filed in one of two civil racketeering cases filed
against Luton and five of his drug task force members in 2004 in
federal court in Muskogee.

Both cases involve allegations Luton and his employees seized and
forfeited property they had no right to seize and then illegally sold
the property.

Luton contends his office has done nothing wrong and there is not a
problem with forfeitures.

The civil racketeering case in question was filed by Margaret Baude,
who claims Luton's employees seized property belonging to her dead son
and that she is his only heir.

Luton and District Attorney Investigator Sam Taylor earlier refused to
answer questions about the storage of property seized and forfeited
during depositions, the ruling states. They did so on the advice of
their attorney, an assistant state attorney general.

The state attorney general argued disclosing the information would
hamper law enforcement in their efforts to protect evidence collection
and storage, saying the storage facilities might be burglarized. The
inspection sought by Baude "is relevant to her claims and is
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence," West's ruling states.

West said Baude shall be permitted to again depose the parties with
the knowledge of the functioning of the storage facilities in
question. Should the information sought not be forthcoming, West ruled
physical inspection of the facilities could be requested if such
action were justified.

West also ordered defendants to release information they earlier
refused to release, including their addresses, personal assets and
other discovery of a personal nature, except for their Social Security
numbers.

Baude has demonstrated the information is relevant and reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant information, West
ruled. She said release of the information would be subject to a
protective order to preclude the general public spread of the personal
information.

Plaintiffs in the suits contend Luton's employees often use seized and
forfeited items for their use and sometimes keep those items at their
homes.

State audits of Luton's office released in July 2005 for the years
2003 and 2004 state Luton's office:

. Forfeited property without a court order; . Failed to keep a
complete inventory of seized items; and . Failed to receipt or deposit
funds seized years earlier.

Similar findings were noted in a 2002 audit.

State Auditor and Inspector Jeff McMahan, said in July he hadn't found
any district attorney forfeitures that "were in this big a mess ...
this has been about as bad as I've heard of."

The 2004 audit cited funds from six forfeiture cases filed during the
years 2000 and 2001 were "neither receipted nor deposited until June
9, 2004."

McMahan said it was the same story - "they just aren't keeping
records, and we're going to keep recommending they do."

McMahan said at the time he had not run into a similar situation. "I
haven't seen one that continued for three years like this."