POLICE FORFEITURE REFORM IN CALIFORNIA SEEN AS A GUIDE FOR ENTIRE NATION

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Just a week ago a forfeiture-reform bill moving
through the California Legislature would have created the nation's
toughest law regulating the way police handle drug money they seize.

By the time the bill passed -- by just two votes in the last hours of
the session -- the reforms it offered were strong but more modest.

And in that, experts say, other states such as Kansas and Missouri
that will soon eye their own reforms can draw two lessons:

Law enforcement has a powerful lobby.

It is possible to pass tougher forfeiture laws.

Indeed, the California bill still must be signed by Gov. Gray Davis
before becoming law, but already it has caught the eye of lawmakers
elsewhere.

"It will embolden other states," said Rep. Daniel Blue Jr. of North
Carolina, a past president of the National Conference of State
Legislators.

The Kansas City Star published stories in the spring showing that
police throughout the country use federal law enforcement agencies to
evade state laws and keep drug money they seize.

Police give the drug money to a federal agency, which keeps 20 percent
or more and sends the rest back to the police department that seized
it.

Most state laws, however, prohibit seized property from going directly
back to police.

Many state legislators are concerned that if police profit from
fighting crime, they will be more aggressive in raising drug money
revenue, which could result in such problems as racial profiling and
illegal searches and seizures.

State forfeiture laws also better protect civil liberties than does
federal law, which does not even require a charge to be filed in order
for property to be seized.

Police say they need to retain much of the money they seize in order
to fight the war on drugs.

The California legislation would affect the way police handled tens of
millions of dollars each year.

California law has allowed the seizing agency to keep about 50
percent, with the rest going to such purposes as education and drug
treatment. Instead, police have regularly used federal agencies, which
return up to 80 percent.

In just three years the federal government has returned more than $92
million to California law enforcement agencies, much of that from drug
cases initiated by the state agencies, according to Department of
Justice figures.

Now, for the first time, California would require police to adhere to
state laws rather than federal laws when seizing property in drug cases.

"The legislature here has spoken in a strong, bipartisan way," said
Sen. John Vasconcellos, the Public Safety Committee Chairman and a
Santa Clara Democrat.

The most contentious provision, which attached a criminal penalty to
police agencies that evaded the law, was dropped last week after
overwhelming complaints by police.

"It's obnoxious to ask law enforcement to follow the law," said John
Lovell, lobbyist for the California police chief's association.
"That's insulting to every cop."

The legislation passed Thursday would:

Require a judge rather than the law enforcement agency to decide when
drug money should be turned over to a federal agency.

Define the point at which police have actually "seized" property. In
Missouri, for example, police circumvent the state's forfeiture law by
arguing that they have not seized property but are only holding it
until a federal agency can take it. A bill is pending to address that
issue in Missouri.

Require police officers to follow state law when seizing property even
if they are deputized by a federal agency.

Allow the state attorney general to sue police agencies if they
violated the law.

A Long Fight

Forfeiture reform has been hard-fought in California.

Lawmakers passed a bill in 1994, but it did not include a provision
forcing police to follow state law.

A couple of years ago Sen. John Burton, a San Francisco Democrat and
president pro tem, attempted to stop the flood of dollars to the
federal government with a bill requiring a judge's order to transfer
drug money to a federal agency. Law enforcement quickly mounted
pressure, and Burton realized he did not have the backing of his
colleagues at that time.

When the current legislation was filed earlier this year by
Vasconcellos, there was little initial reaction.

The bill quietly made its way through the Senate and the State
Assembly committees. It was not until the last two weeks of the
session that the effect of the bill became clear to police, who went
into action.

Tim Yaryan, a lawyer who represents rank-and-file police in Southern
California, said the provision that made it a crime if a police
officer violated the law was like rubbing a pound of salt in a wound.

"Here we're having police officers who are doing their job and doing
what they're told to do, and they would potentially be criminals,"
Yaryan said. "That's horrible."

Police lobbyists told legislative staff that they would take the fight
to the governor and promised a veto unless the criminal provision was
removed.

With such loud opposition from one of the state's most powerful
lobbies, that provision was discarded Wednesday.

Rand Martin, Vasconcellos' spokesman, said the law enforcement lobby
was perceived to be powerful, even though it did not have much money
at play in election campaigns. The lobby's power comes more from
politicians' fear that they could lose elections if they are seen as
soft on crime.

So when law enforcement says to reject a bill, lawmakers tend to
listen, Martin said.

"On an issue like this, where (police) are fearful of losing money,
they turn up the heat more than they would normally," he said.

Indeed, even after the bill was changed and passed, Lovell vowed that
police would go to Davis, the governor. Some lobbyists and legislators
speculated that Davis, considered a friend of law enforcement, would
veto the legislation.

Roger Salazar, a Davis spokesman, said the governor had not yet
decided.

Reform Push Grows

Legislators across the country think the California legislation will
have a big effect even if Davis vetoes it, because it shows lawmakers
can pass such laws despite the law enforcement lobby.

In recent years few states have been successful in passing reform
legislation, but several are now considering it.

Blue, of North Carolina, is closely watching developments because,
although his state laws require forfeited drug money to go to public
schools, little does.

Because the bill was passed in California, the country's most populous
state, legislators elsewhere will look at it, Blue said.

Blue said it was difficult politically for legislators to go against
law enforcement. Ultimately, he believes, Congress will have to
shoulder the problem.

"You will probably have to fix it at the federal level," he
said.

One Utah legislator agreed that the California bill gave momentum to
other states, even if Davis were to exercise his veto power.

Rep. Bill Wright, an Elberta Republican and speaker pro tem, said it
was recognized that many governors often became "friends with the
cops" through the election process.

"You gain an association with them, and it becomes very difficult to
go against them," Wright said. "A lot of (governors) know it's right,
but they just have a hard time standing up and coming outside their
loop."

Utah has a voter initiative on the November ballot that would redirect
money away from police to public schools and, like the California law,
require a judge's approval to transfer drug money to a federal agency.

Police and prosecutors in Utah have joined forces to fight the
initiative, Wright said. Massachusetts and Oregon also have
initiatives aimed at reforming forfeiture laws.

A forfeiture bill pending in Missouri failed in the spring because of
law enforcement pressure, but legislators hope to pass it early next
year.

Rep. Jim Kreider, a Nixa Democrat and speaker pro tem, said law
enforcement was damaging itself by fighting reform.

"It is going to end up hurting them bad if it continues," said
Kreider, who is a co-sponsor of the bill. "We don't want anything to
hurt our finest."

In Kansas, Rep. Ralph Tanner, a Baldwin City Republican, praised the
California Legislature. Tanner has researched the California bill as
he is drafting one he plans to introduce in the next session. He
expects the bill to redirect drug money to education, away from law
enforcement.

Tanner is talking to legislators, seeking support. He realizes that
some, as in California, will believe police should have everything
they want.

Tanner said he had hopes that because of what California and Missouri
had gone through, legislators in Kansas were awakening to the idea
that forfeiture reform had become necessary.

In California, Sen. Jim Costa, a Fresno Democrat and president of the
National Conference of State Legislators, said top conference members
would be meeting soon to determine their agenda for the winter meeting
in Washington. The forfeiture issue would be considered because it
affects so many states, he said.