COMMITTEE PROPOSES CHANGES TO KANSAS FORFEITURE LAW

A legislative committee on Monday recommended changes to the Kansas
forfeiture law to address problems in the way the state's law enforcement
agencies handle drug money.

The problems were found last month in a state audit that had been prompted
by a series of stories in The Kansas City Star about forfeiture issues in
Missouri, Kansas and other states.

In addition to those findings, the audit reached several other conclusions.
For example, it found that other states provide more protection to
residents whose property is seized than does Kansas law.

Unlike some states, which require a criminal conviction before a person's
property can be forfeited, Kansas law does not even require a criminal
charge to be filed.

The Legislative Post Audit Committee's recommendations focus only on better
reporting and handling of money by law enforcement agencies.

However, other legislators already are discussing ways to further tighten
Kansas law.

For example, Rep. Ralph Tanner, a Baldwin Republican, plans to file a bill
to redirect forfeited money to education. In Kansas, police agencies are
able to keep a large part of the money, but Tanner and officials in many
other states see that as a conflict of interest.

Tanner said Monday he also was particularly concerned that a person's
property can be taken without a conviction.

"I don't care how much wrong a perpetrator is supposed to have done,"
Tanner said. "That isn't a conclusive wrong until some court says it is.
The perpetrator is still entitled to his day in court."

Among the committee's recommended changes to the forfeiture law:

Each agency must deposit seized money in a special law enforcement trust
fund in the city or county treasury. Some agencies were commingling the
state money with federal money, even though state and federal laws have
different rules on how the money can be spent.

Each agency must file an annual detailed report with its governing body.
The audit found that out of 103 law enforcement agencies, only eight had
filed the required report.

Anytime a forfeiture exceeds 25 percent of an agency's budget, its
governing agency may reallocate the money for such programs as drug abuse
treatment, drug and crime prevention, housing or other community-based
programs.

The committee's recommendations will be introduced by the next legislative
session in January.

The audit selected six law enforcement agencies that received forfeited
money. Of those, auditors found that five agencies had problems with the
way they handled drug money.

One agency actually had disposed of drug money before a judge declared it
legally confiscated. Another agency improperly deposited state and federal
money into a local bank account instead of its law enforcement trust fund,
as the law requires.

The audit also found that Kansas forfeiture law is vague on how law
enforcement can spend the forfeited money. In fact, the audit warned that
law enforcement may be able to spend the money in ways the Legislature
never intended.

For example, the report listed a number of expenditures law enforcement had
made. One agency spent almost $900 for coloring books and crayons for drug
education. Another agency spent several hundred dollars on a remote-control
door opener for a police dog.

In addition to pointing out accounting problems, the audit also examined
national issues raised by The Star's series and found several that are
potential concerns to Kansans. According to the audit:

Incentives exist in Kansas for law enforcement to circumvent state law in
order to seize property.

Kansas law prohibits a person's home from being forfeited because of a drug
conviction, but the audit cited a pending case of a man who has appealed
his drug conviction and is fighting to keep his home. Kansas Bureau of
Investigation officials have told the man that he must either pay $63,000
to the agency or they will turn the home over to the federal government for
forfeiture.

Kansas may provide too little oversight over agencies that transfer
property to the federal government.

State law allows police to hand seized property over to federal agencies
without obtaining a judge's approval, as most other states require. Kansas
law only requires that a prosecutor give that approval.

(The Star found that even that approval is not always obtained. The Kansas
Highway Patrol acknowledged to The Star earlier this year that it seldom
got the approval of a prosecutor.)

By keeping forfeited property, law enforcement could have an inherent
conflict of interest. If police can increase revenue by fighting crime,
they could become overzealous, leading to illegal searches and seizures.

Missouri lawmakers also will consider tougher forfeiture measures in the
upcoming legislative session. As opposed to Kansas, Missouri has one of the
most restrictive laws in the country, but at least one bill is pending to
close loopholes.