HANDLING OF SOME PROPERTY FORFEITURES CALLED LACKING

Utah lawmen and prosecutors are, by and large, obeying the law when they
seize a suspected criminal's car or cash as part of their criminal
behavior, the state's legislative auditor general says.

But while Utahns civil and individual property rights are not being
violated, several local law enforcement agencies are not handling their
forfeitures well. And lax handling of the assets are giving critics of the
process ammunition, a study of the state's asset forfeiture law by
Legislative Auditor General Wayne Welsh's office shows. The report likely
won't silence a growing number of critics -- many of whom cite
constitutionally protected rights of disposal of property -- who say law
officers use the law to take cars and other assets from law-abiding
citizens innocently caught up in a criminal case or take the property of
suspected criminals before they are convicted in a court of law.

In saying the law is not overtly abused, Welsh did find some agencies --
who can benefit financially from seizing cars and cash from suspected
criminals -- need to follow guidelines more carefully.

If fiscal 1999, $729,000 was seized across the state, Welsh noted. While
most cases just involve taking a car used in the drug trade, Sandy police
once found $866,000 in cash and three refrigerators full of marijuana in a
storage shed in a drug bust.

Horror stories abound over property seizures. And Rep. Bill Wright,
R-Elberta, who has been a staunch defender of constitutional rights on a
number of issues -- has worked on an asset forfeiture bill for several
years without success.

The Utah Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that it is not "double jeopardy" for a
person's property to be seized while at the same time he is charged in a
criminal action.

Welsh says many claims by opponents of the current law are greatly
exaggerated.

But there are concerns, mostly dealing with how property was handled after
it was seized, not whether it was legally seized in the first place.

For example, Welsh said some law enforcement agencies charge a vehicle
impound fee after a court has denied a forfeiture request on the car. So
the owner still has a large impound fee to pay.

And while Welsh's auditors could ultimately account for all the property
seized in the 65 cases, they noted that officials in one law enforcement
agency (not named in the public report) had spent some of the cash they
seized before it was legally forfeited to them.

Another agency lost some items from its evidence room, lost seized cash and
retained seized property even though forfeiture against the property was
not filed in court by the required 90-day deadline.

Welsh recommends that each county attorney in the state appoint one deputy
attorney to oversee all of the county's forfeiture work.

Also, no law officers should individually be allowed to buy from the county
property that their agency seized.

Finally, all seized property must securely be stored, and contraband (like
drugs) and hazardous materials should quickly be destroyed if they aren't
needed as evidence.

State law says that before a court can forfeiture property to a law
enforcement agency, the agency must prove that it really needs the asset.
That requirement is rarely followed, Welsh said.

The law is confusing in another way. Critics of the system have claimed --
wrongly -- that all forfeitures must be deposited with the state's Division
of Finance. That is not a requirement, although lawmakers may want to make
it one, Welsh said.

Since a number of court-ordered forfeitures are directly spent by the law
agencies, without the asset ever coming to the state, critics have claimed
law officers are taking property just to help their own agency budgets.

State law says forfeitures can only come in narcotic cases. Yet it appears
some cases may push that rule. And forfeitures can not be used to pay
informants. Yet that aspect may have been bent, also.

Mostly, said Walsh, the rules need to be clearly defined and followed by a
number of law agencies.

"Agencies often don't treat proceeds from asset forfeitures as restricted
accounts" and may mingle agency funds together, Welsh reported.

To stop huge amounts of forfeiture assets building up in agency, Welsh
recommends that some kind of cap be placed on the assets, some time frame
imposed in which the money must be spent.

Lastly, since some law agencies haven't managed their forfeitures well once
they got a hold of them, Welsh says some outside group -- like the state's
Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice -- be given the power to
oversee the whole process.