OFFICIALS IN SEVERAL STATES WORKING TO OVERHAUL ASSET-FORFEITURE LAWS

In Missouri, lawmakers are vowing that next time they'll
succeed.

California legislators just took a big step toward reform, while
education attorneys in North Carolina are just beginning their own
battle.

In recent weeks, officials in several states across the country have
pledged action to block local law enforcement from keeping property
confiscated in drug busts and traffic stops.

Most states have passed laws blocking seized property from going
directly back to police, and many states require seized property to be
used for other purposes, such as education.

But last month The Kansas City Star reported that police agencies in
more than two dozen states checked by the newspaper circumvent their
own laws and keep millions of dollars in seizures.

When police seize money or property, they hand it off to a federal law
enforcement agency instead of going to a state court. The federal
agency keeps a cut, usually 20 percent, and returns the rest to police.

Police say they need the money to fight the war on drugs. But
lawmakers and some legal experts say the circumvention threatens civil
liberties by bypassing state laws, which generally provide more
protection to property owners than federal law.

Unlike many legislators elsewhere, those in Missouri already knew
about the federal handoffs and passed a reform bill in the state
Senate this year. But the bill died on the last day of the session.

Now Sen. Harry Wiggins, a Kansas City Democrat who co-sponsored the
bill, pledges to make it his primary goal to get the bill passed by
February. The session begins in January.

The other sponsor, Rep. Jim Kreider, a Nixa Democrat and speaker pro
tem, said he will be pushing from his side of the General Assembly.

"It's high on my radar screen," Kreider said. "This is the right thing
to do."

Missouri law prohibits police from handing seized property over to a
federal law enforcement agency. Instead police are required to notify
a prosecutor. A judge then decides whether the property should be
forfeited and go to education or be transferred to a federal agency.

But police say when they give property to federal agencies, they are
not doing anything wrong because they have not seized it - they only
detained it until a federal agent seizes it.

Wiggins and Kreider sponsored a bill that would:

Try to close any loophole by defining a seizure "as the point at which
any law enforcement officer or agent discovers and exercises control
over property."

Require detailed reports of each seizure as well as
audits.

The bill was blocked with only about three minutes left in the session
by Rep. Craig Hosmer, a Springfield Democrat, who thinks police
departments need seizure money to fight the war on drugs.

"There is nothing in my read of our constitution that what they are
doing is illegal," Hosmer said. "They are using another avenue that is
available to make sure they have resources to do the job that they
believe is very important."

Kreider disagreed.

"Rep. Hosmer believes the bill will hurt law enforcement," Kreider
said. "I sincerely believe that it will hurt law enforcement worse the
way it is now. It will hurt their reputation. It will hurt them in the
long run by circumventing the law and possibly violating the rights of
Americans."

Gov. Mel Carnahan said this week through his spokesman that police
were doing nothing illegal.

"The governor believes law enforcement is operating within the law,"
said spokesman Jerry Nachtigal. "The governor stands by the highway
patrol. They are doing their best to slow down the drug trade."

But Nachtigal said the governor would not comment on state law
requiring forfeitures to go to education or discuss whether he
believes keeping the proceeds is a conflict of interest for police.

Developments in other states:

California. The state Senate this month passed a bill that would
require police to get a court order before drug money could be
transferred to a federal agency.

The bill now must pass the House, where lawmakers expect a stronger
fight from law enforcement. The bill would make it a crime for police
to hand off seizures without a court order - possibly the toughest
such provision in the country.

"The lure of increased revenue has blinded local law enforcement to
their responsibility to abide by our state policy and to protect the
due process rights of our citizens," said Sen. John Vasconcellos, a
Santa Clara Democrat, in a statement.

Kansas. Rep. Ralph Tanner, a Baldwin City Republican, plans to meet
with the speaker of the House next week to discuss introducing a bill
to redirect forfeited money away from law enforcement and to education.

The bill also would specify that only a judge could decide if
forfeiture proceeds should be transferred to the federal government.

North Carolina. Attorneys for school boards are talking about reform
after discovering that little forfeiture money is going to education,
as the state's constitution requires.

One of them, Michael Crowell, an attorney who works for the state
board of education, is researching legal remedies. He said he is going
to speak to the attorney general.

"We are going to pursue this," Crowell said.

Massachusetts. A citizens group says it won't back away from reform
efforts despite new opposition from law enforcement.

The Coalition for Fair Treatment is pushing for a voter initiative
that would direct most forfeited money to a substance-abuse fund.

But the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association and the
commonwealth's 11 district attorneys filed a lawsuit Tuesday in state
Supreme Judicial Court asking for an injunction to block the November
vote. The lawsuit says the initiative signed by more than 100,000
Massachusetts voters is unconstitutional.

The initiative would not prohibit law enforcement agencies from
handing off property to the federal government. But in cases where the
federal government returned money to police, the initiative would
prohibit police from keeping it. Instead, the money would be turned
over to a substance-abuse fund.

The lawsuit says federal law requires returned money to be spent on
law enforcement.

But Carl Valvo, an attorney for the Coalition, said the initiative
does not conflict with federal law. In fact, the requirement on how
the money must be spent is a U.S. Department of Justice guideline and
not law, he said.

In addition, the National Conference of State Legislatures, a lobbying
organization made up of lawmakers from every state, is considering a
session based on The Star's series at its annual meeting next month,
said Michael Bird, senior federal affairs counsel.

Two years ago, conference members passed a policy that laid out some
legislators' concerns about forfeitures.

"Federal asset-forfeiture law should not be designed to encourage law
enforcement to avoid state asset-forfeiture laws," the policy says.

Jeanne Adkins, who was chairman of the conference's committee that
proposed the policy, said every state legislator should be concerned
that the separation between local and federal law enforcement is eroding.

"There used to be a very, very clear dividing line that states handled
criminal law," said Adkins, a former Colorado legislator. "I think
legislators are obligated to look at the potential conflict."

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