BALLOT INITIATIVES SEEK TO CHANGE FORFEITURE LAWS IN THREE STATES

If lawmakers can't fix the forfeiture mess, then maybe voters can.

At least that's the hope of activists and volunteers who have placed voter
initiatives on the Nov. 7 ballots in three states to reform the way property
seized in drug busts and traffic stops is confiscated.

The initiatives in Utah, Oregon and Massachusetts would dramatically reduce
the opportunity for law enforcement to violate the civil liberties of
innocent victims of forfeiture, supporters say.

The ballot measures would, in effect, require law enforcement to prove that
a crime had occurred before property could be forfeited. And drug money,
instead of going back to police, would be sent to a public education fund in
Utah and drug treatment funds in Oregon and Massachusetts.

Both supporters and opponents see the initiatives as a skirmish line -- if
even one of the three measures passes, the forfeiture battle could spread
quickly to other states.

"If we are successful in making the changes, we will force the rest of the
country, including the federal government, to begin putting in place the
checks and balances that are lacking," said state Rep. Floyd Prozanski of
Oregon.

Concern about forfeitures has been growing in many states in recent months.
In May, The Kansas City Star published a series of articles showing that
police across the country were working with federal agencies to evade their
own state forfeiture laws.

Most state laws prevent police departments from directly benefiting from
drug money they seize, out of fear that it could lead to abuses. But The
Star found police often simply hand off drug money they seize to federal
agencies, which keep part of it and give the rest back to police.

In addition to preventing police from getting drug money back from federal
agencies, all three ballot initiatives address concerns that police are
violating civil liberties by conducting illegal seizures and using racial
profiling.

Those issues normally should be dealt with through state legislatures but
they are so controversial that politicians are at a stalemate, said
Prozanski, a Democrat who in recent years failed to get a reform bill
through his legislature.

The voter initiative appears to be the only option, he said.

But law enforcement officials in each of the states are fighting back. They
believe the initiatives would end property forfeitures and greatly hamper
their ability to fight the war on drugs.

They also say that the donors who are funding the initiative campaigns have
an ulterior motive -- to legalize drugs.

Three out-of-state tycoons have donated more than $1.25 million to the three
campaigns: New Yorker George Soros, a billionaire and philanthropist;
Arizonan John Sperling, founder of the University of Phoenix; and Ohioan
Peter Lewis, an insurance magnate.

But a political consultant for Lewis said the three donors have no hidden
agenda. "None of them have supported drug legalization in this country," Sam
Vagenas said.

Instead, the initiatives are a response by the donors to the costly failure
that the war on drugs has become, said Ethan Nadelman, an adviser to Soros
on drug policy.

"What they all have in common is they hate the drug war," Nadelman said.
"George Soros sees it very much as a human rights issue."

Charlie Evans, a political consultant to the opponents of the Utah
initiative, said he believes that the three states are a testing ground for
the financiers.

"If they have success here or in the other states, you'll see it filed in 20
states next year," Evans said.

The three initiatives are similar in many ways:

All require that drug money seized by local police and then forfeited by the
federal government to be deposited in state funds rather than returned to
police.

All carry penalties for not following the law. In Massachusetts, it would be
a crime.

All increase the burden of evidence in order to forfeit money. Both sides
agree that in practice a conviction would be required.

All require detailed reporting of forfeitures.

In Utah and Oregon, the initiatives would require a court order before drug
money could be transferred to a federal agency. Supporters think the
initiatives have solid public support in all three states, each of which
requires a simple majority for passage. Massachusetts, however, requires a
voter turnout of at least 30 percent.

Utah:

A recent newspaper poll in Utah showed 58 percent of voters statewide would
vote in favor of the initiative with 12 percent opposed. Twenty-one percent
were unsure.

However, all major candidates for governor and attorney general oppose
Initiative B.

Evans, the opponents' consultant, warned that if the initiative passes, it
could become a huge detriment to forfeitures in the state.

"It would so encumber the process with extra so-called protections and extra
loopholes, it would make forfeiture very significantly, much, much harder to
do," Evans said. "In the end the money that is realized from the sale of the
assets would be less than a tenth of what it is today."

But one supporter, Randy Horiuchi, disputed that conclusion.

"There is nothing that our initiative does to hamper their ability to take
property," said Horiuchi, a former Salt Lake County commissioner and son of
a police veteran. "We did make it so they are going to have a tougher burden
to prove but, my word, that is due process."

Utah is the only state where law enforcement has organized a campaign
against the initiative. But the Coalition to Stop Drug Dealer Profits has
raised only about $15,000 compared with Utahns for Property Protection,
which has more than $560,000.

Oregon:

Harry Detwiler, a 67-year-old retired schoolteacher, has become the poster
boy for the Oregon Property Protection Act of 2000.

Three years ago, a sheriff's task force in Medford and federal agents
searched Detwiler's home and seized $35,000 from a safe but found no drugs.

Detwiler never was charged with a crime, and he had receipts to show where
the money had come from. But the federal government kept the money anyway
because Detwiler missed a deadline for filing a claim.

A lawyer has taken Detwiler's case pro bono, and it is on appeal to the U.S.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Certainly, this is America," Detwiler said. "Little did I know."

The Oregonians for Property Protection campaign is using Detwiler to show
how abusive forfeiture can be, although it's unclear how the initiative
would have affected his case.

Even though his sister was murdered by a drug dealer in the 1970s, Rep.
Prozanski believes his state's forfeiture laws lack protection for
Oregonians.

"The people should be held accountable, but we have a duty to see that
government has proper checks and balances," Prozanski said. "The whole
credibility of our justice system is shaken."

Law enforcement officials said that if the initiative wins, it will
irreparably harm an important law enforcement tool.

"There would be no more forfeitures by the drug task forces in (Oregon),"
said Lt. Jim Anderson, a member of the Jackson County Narcotics Enforcement
Team, the drug task force in southwest Oregon that was involved in the
Detwiler case.

"There would be nothing to motivate us," Anderson said. "There would be no
rewards for doing this."

Massachusetts:

Instead of focusing on forfeiture reform, supporters in Massachusetts are
stumping for the need to treat drug abuse and make convicted drug dealers
pay for it.

"Drug money for drug treatment. That seems to be working," said Al Gordon,
spokesman for the Massachusetts Coalition for Fair Treatment.

That's the campaign strategy, but the initiative's bottom line is forfeiture
reform. District attorneys and law enforcement recognize that and staunchly
oppose it.

Under the initiative, drug money forfeited under state law would go to drug
treatment instead of to police and district attorneys, as it does now. The
measure would not prohibit police from seeking to transfer drug money to
federal agencies -- but when the money comes back, it would go to drug
treatment, not police.

In June, the state's 11 district attorneys and the Massachusetts Chiefs of
Police Association filed a lawsuit asking the Supreme Judicial Court to rule
that the measure was unconstitutional and should be removed from the ballot.

Last Monday, the court ruled that the initiative can remain on the ballot.
The court said it can't actually rule on the content of the initiative
unless it passes.

Two of the initiative's most outspoken critics, Middlesex County District
Attorney Martha Coakley and Geline Williams, executive director of the
Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, did not return telephone calls
seeking comment.

Deena Whitfield, chairwoman of the Coalition for Fair Treatment, said law
enforcement and district attorneys have had years to try to correct the drug
problem but have failed.

To reach Karen Dillon, projects reporter, call (816) 234-4430 or send e-mail
to: kdillon@kcstar.com