TO PROTECT AND COLLECT

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.