ENFORCERS FEAR NEW FORFEITURE REFORMS

Putting the brakes on the war on drugs may not have been foremost in the
minds of Oregon voters when they passed Measure 3, but the initiative may
have that effect by staunching the flow of money to drug enforcement
operations in the state.

The measure, approved Nov. 7 by a two-to-one ratio, requires a conviction
before police can keep seized cash and property. For voters, the measure's
main appeal was that it upheld the principle, "innocent until proven
guilty," said state Rep. Floyd Prozanski, a Eugene Democrat and one of the
initiative's top advocates.

But for police departments, the main issue is, how will their drug-fighting
units make ends meet, now that voters have denied them the use of cars,
guns, homes and cash seized from suspected drug dealers?

"I'm waiting for answers like everyone else," said Eugene police Sgt. Lee
Thoming, who heads Lane County's Interagency Narcotics Enforcement Team. "I
intend to do everything I can to keep the team running. It's just a matter
of figuring out how that can happen. Or if that can happen."

Law enforcement officials in Lane County will meet Monday to determine how
to keep INET afloat financially. Legislators, prosecutors and others also
will gather that day at the Capitol to wrestle with questions about
implementing Measure 3.

Oregon's passage of the forfeiture reform law was one of several
achievements in Western states by people trying to roll back the war on
drugs. Voters in Utah passed a similar ballot proposal restricting
government seizures of drug offenders' property. Colorado and Nevada joined
Oregon and other states that have legalized the medicinal use of marijuana.
And California voters passed an initiative that will send thousands of
first- and second-time drug users to community treatment programs instead of
jail.

All five measures, along with a failed Massachusetts proposal banning the
seizure of property without a conviction and substituting treatment for
prison for nonviolent drug offenders, were heavily backed by the Campaign
for New Drug Policies.

The Santa Monica, Calif.-based group has been financed by three billionaires
led by international financier George Soros, who over the years has
bankrolled 19 initiatives.

Of the $415,503 raised by the pro-Measure 3 campaign, all but $2,798 came
from the Campaign for New Drug Policies. Its spokesman, Dave Fratello, said
the measure fit right into the organization's goals of "rolling back the
abuses of the drug wars."

Here in Oregon, however, the campaign leading up to the vote on Measure 3
focused on the initiative's higher standard of proof needed for law
enforcement to keep assets seized through drug raids.

"Voters clearly understood that this was an issue of fairness and the
concept of innocent until proven guilty," said Silverton political
consultant Geoff Sugerman, who helped run the Measure 3 campaign.

The Oregon Legislature passed an asset forfeiture law in 1989 at the height
of the nation's drug war.

The law, similar to legislation supported at the time throughout the nation,
allows police to keep seized assets through civil forfeiture if they can
show "probable cause" that a crime has been committed and that the property
in question is connected to the alleged illegal act.

That's the standard that must be met for police to secure a search warrant.

The intent was to take the profit out of illegal drugs by stripping dealers
of the tools they use to conduct business and the assets purchased with the
profit.

Under Measure 3, police can continue to store cars, cash, and other seized
assets, but agencies can't liquidate them unless the owner is convicted or
freely relinquishes them.

The measure also lets police keep no more than 25 percent of the value of
seized assets to cover the costs of drug-law enforcement operations; the
rest must go to drug treatment.

Prozanski, who last year tried unsuccessfully to get the Legislature to
reform Oregon's asset forfeiture law, said Measure 3 was intended to take
away the "profit motive" behind drug enforcement units such as INET.

The measure wasn't meant to stop police from going after methamphetamine
manufacturers, heroin traffickers, and other drug-law violators, he said.

"The drug task forces do fill a vital role, but that doesn't mean I'm
comfortable with that kind of funding to be set up without the proper checks
and balances" to protect individuals' civil liberties, Prozanski said. "It's
going to come down to local decisions to prioritize the resources they have.
It's going to shift the funding from the current source to being ranked
against other community needs."

Thoming said it wasn't clear whether the agencies in INET - Eugene and
Springfield police and the Lane County sheriff's office and district
attorney's office - will find the money in their existing budgets to replace
the forfeiture dollars. The 12-person task force's budget this year is
$550,900, all of it coming from cash and property seized in drug raids.

While the team's members are paid by their own agencies, the proceeds from
seized cash and property pays for rent, expenses, training, equipment and
liability insurance.

Given that funding has been tight and voters have not been in the mood to
expand budgets through levies, Thoming doubted that Lane County governments
could continue to enforce drug laws at current levels.

And he wondered if that wasn't the goal of Measure 3's proponents all along.

"To me, it just all seems to be part of the movement to legalize drugs step
by step by step," said Thoming, noting that the billionaires who bankrolled
Measure 3 have campaigned elsewhere to decriminalize drugs. "It's another
step to reducing our ability to combat drug dealers."

Measure 3 advocate Prozanski took strong exception to the notion that the
measure was part of crusade to legalize drugs.

And while opponents have painted Soros and his efforts as part of such a
movement, advocates said they're not trying to make drugs legal - they're
trying to end a drug war that treats users as criminals and instead
rehabilitate nonviolent drug users.

That's why it was important that Measure 3 shifts the proceeds from drug
enforcement to drug treatment, he said.

"From my perspective, the discussion was where can you make the most impact
on reducing the impact of drugs on our community," Prozanski said. "And that
is to require criminals convicted to pay for the treatment of the people
they have gotten addicted," Prozanski added.