FORFEITURE BILL MAKES WAY TO SENATE

The Legislation, Which Would Restrict Seizures From Drug Raids And The Use
Of Proceeds, Could Face Challenges.

Police seizures of cash, cars and houses in drug raids were up in 2000,
according to a new state report.

But voter approval of a ballot measure last fall and the Oregon House's
approval of an implementing bill for the measure will put new restrictions
on civil forfeitures. Police still can seize property, but they will have
to await criminal convictions of owners to keep it. Proceeds are earmarked
for drug treatment, not law enforcement.

House Bill 2429, which passed 46-1 on Friday, heads to the Senate.

Judge Pamela Abernethy is considering a challenge to Measure 3 in Marion
County Circuit Court but has not yet issued a ruling. The challenge, filed
by Lincoln County and its interagency narcotics team, asserts that the
measure proposed too many unrelated changes to the Oregon Constitution.

Until passage of Measure 3, which took effect Dec. 7, agencies could
confiscate property seized in drug raids if they believed there was
probable cause that a crime was committed even if its owner was not
convicted. Cities and counties could adopt forfeiture laws for other
crimes, such as drunken driving and prostitution, for which police seize cars.

Though the measure is in force, its effect on forfeitures is uncertain
because police agencies are awaiting the passage of the pending
legislation, the outcome of the court challenge and action on other
potential legislation.

The new report says that because of the restrictions, some local
governments decided against filing new forfeitures.

The new report was compiled by the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission,
which does the staff work for the special committee that oversees Oregon's
1989 forfeiture law. The committee did not even meet from 1994 to 1998. In
1997, the Legislature ordered the commission to begin gathering data.

It lists 1,526 seizures for all of last year, up from 1,064 for 10 months
in the 1999 report.

Not all forfeitures were reported, and agencies are required to detail
spending of proceeds only if the seizures involved $10,000 or more. But 38
local governments filed reports, up from 25 last year.

Of the 1,526 seizures statewide last year, 85 percent involved cash; 22
percent, vehicles; and

2 percent, real estate. These figures are similar to the proportions in
1999, except for vehicle seizures, which accounted for

15 percent.

Claims of innocence were filed by 368 owners, up from 202 in 1999. The
reports do not track what happens to the claims.

About $2.8 million was available for distribution to local governments last
year from civil forfeitures, up from $2 million the previous year. The
figure is higher in part because $1 million was carried over from 1999.

After legal processing costs of about $1 million were deducted, most of the
remaining $1.7 million went to law enforcement, $1.2 million; prosecution,
$315,480; and drug education, prevention and treatment, $118,028.

The new voter-approved restrictions give priority for forfeiture proceeds
to drug treatment, though local governments still can keep 25 percent for
processing forfeitures. House Bill 2429 still will allow some proceeds from
all forfeitures to go to the state fund for cleanup of illegal drug sites
and to the special oversight committee.

The House criminal-law subcommittee has scheduled for April 19 to consider
a criminal forfeiture law, which would let some of the proceeds from seized
property go to law enforcement, and proposed ballot measures to exempt some
property seizures from the new restrictions.