OFFICERS SAY BYE TO 'BUY MONEY'

Law Strips Money From Drug Task Force; Lawmakers Say It Was Never Theirs To
Begin With.

Mike Cooper constantly crunches the numbers. He's got to make sure there's
money to pay the electric bill, put gas in officers' cars and, if there's
any money left, buy illicit drugs.

"We're out of buy money ... we're broke," said Sgt. Cooper, supervisor of
COMET - Combined Ozarks Multi-jurisdictional Enforcement Team. The
regionwide anti-drug task force could get nearly $100,000 less than it did
last year from forfeiture funds.

This is real life for COMET and other law agencies after state lawmakers
took steps to prevent them from keeping the illicit money they seize during
investigations.

Law officers say the legislature has robbed them of funds they need to
snare drug dealers. Lawmakers argue that money doesn't belong to cops - and
that the state's constitution clearly directs those funds to schools.

Caught in the middle is COMET.

In a region where the burgeoning methamphetamine highway defines the law
enforcement agenda, small local counties rely on the anti-drug team. COMET
provides undercover narcotics officers for nine Ozarks counties where
departments can't otherwise afford them.

On top of its money woes, Cooper's team is also down five officers - and
meth-lab cleanups are consuming more time than investigation and apprehension.

A federal matching grant pays for three-fourths of COMET's annual budget.
But to receive those funds, COMET must generate the other fourth. As the
task force applies for next year's grant, they are looking at only $6,000
in forfeiture money. Officials will have to tap into the agency's savings
and summon up all the extra funds they can get their hands on.

"We'll come up with it," Cooper said. "What I worry about is the future."

"There's no way (COMET) can do 100 percent of what they were doing," said
Christian County Sheriff Joey Matlock, who is on the task force's board.
"... The less fighting of drugs by undercover officers probably means
there'll be more drugs out on the streets."

But many lawmakers scoff at claims that the new law is anti-law-
enforcement. Officers, they say, should never have counted on getting the
forfeiture money in the first place.

"I want to keep drugs off the streets, I do," said Rep. Jim Kreider,
D-Nixa, who sponsored the bill that set off all the debate. "But this is
money that is not theirs. (This is) money that can taint police's reputation."

Kreider said he understands that law enforcement needs more funding. That's
why legislators have passed bills that provide millions of dollars to fight
methamphetamine. Police chiefs and sheriffs need to lobby their state
legislators for funds, he said, or seek federal dollars.

"I would be more than willing to use every bit of influence I have to get
money, all the state grants available, but I haven't had one call. Not one
call from Sheriff Matlock," said Kreider, who represents Christian County's
district.

"All the whining around - it's difficult for me to understand," said
attorney Dee Wampler. "The law is a good law. It took away the incentive
for the participating agency to profit. They need to quit bellyaching about
it and do something about it."

Those words don't do much to persuade law officers.

"The lawmakers don't understand what's happened," said Nixa Police Chief
Bruce Belin, whose department is helped by undercover officers with COMET.
"They are hamstringing local efforts. They must not understand that or they
wouldn't have done it."

Rep. Craig Hosmer, D-Springfield, who opposed the new law, said he knew all
along that the law would hurt police. "They were getting money to continue
the job we wanted them to do," Hosmer said. "With the law the way it is
now, we've hurt that effort."

Cooper sums up his dilemma, lost amid all the political squabbling: "The
old adage of let's make drug dealers pay for the fight on drugs - that's
not the case anymore. Now the taxpayers are paying for it."