BILL WOULD REVAMP WAY FORFEITURES ARE HANDLED

In the war against drugs, relying on law enforcement alone fails to address
the issue of demand, the effects of drugs on users and on our communities.
All of us know that an essential element for creating a safer community is
a stronger and trusting relationship between its residents and law
enforcement agencies.

For these reasons, I have filed legislation requiring the establishment of
a nine-member advisory committee to advise individual district attorneys on
the use and distribution of public funds created by the seizure of assets
during a drug raid. Included in its membership will be advocates and
persons in recovery.

Currently, under state law, seized assets are distributed between the
office that prosecuted the case, either a district attorney or the attorney
general, and the city, town or state police department involved in the
seizure. Although it allows for expenditure for treatment and anti-drug
programs of up to 10 percent, the present law does not require that these
public assets be used for such programs. Nor does it require filing of a
report detailing funds received and expended. It does require,
nevertheless, the filing of an annual report only for money distributed for
drug rehabilitation, drug education and other anti-drug programs. The law
fails to delineate how forfeiture assets may be used, giving complete
discretion to each district attorney.

The legislation I filed seeks to change this. Under House Bill 3097, 40
percent of assets seized will be distributed to the police department
involved and 60 percent of such funds to the prosecuting district attorney
or attorney general. Of this 60 percent, 20 percent must be distributed,
according to an advisory committee's recommendation, for drug
rehabilitation and anti-drug or neighborhood crime watch programs by the
district attorney's office. According to The Standard-Times, "nine of the
district attorneys surveyed by the newspaper average six percent of their
drug forfeiture accounts on community programs in 1997 and 1998." We must
do better. Education, prevention and treatment are important weapons in the
fight against drugs.

In addition, Bill 3097 would require each district attorney and police
department to annually file a detailed report on funds received under the
drug forfeiture law and on their distribution and use, regardless of
purpose, to the House and Senate Ways and Means committees.

Why do we need the change? It's simple: the use of taxpayer funds cannot
and must not occur hidden from public scrutiny or from oversight by the
Massachusetts Legislature, which constitutionally is responsible for
appropriation of all public money. The appropriation of public funds is not
an administrative act but a legislative one. The public interest is greatly
served when information on the expenditure of public dollars is open to
public review. Unfortunately, the public perception is of a closed-door
approach to how drug forfeiture money -- which is, when all is said and
done, public money -- is being used by some district attorneys.

There are district attorneys who invite public participation by having
committees that review anti-drug or treatment proposals and have a say in
allocation of funds for such programs. This partnership approach, essential
in the fight against drugs, is refreshing and it ensures, because of public
participation, that use of forfeiture money meets the community's needs in
its fight to prevent drug use and crimes associated with it and in its
effort to help those in need of treatment.

As we know, this is the exception and not the norm among district
attorneys. This partnership, because it is not required by law, may end
with the election of a new district attorney. A successor's approach may be
that of other current district attorneys -- we will call you, don't call
us. For many, this creates the appearance that the drug forfeiture money is
a secret fund of public dollars used to reward political friends. This is
the wrong methodology for fighting the war on drugs.

The changes sought in the law are minor in scope, yet major in impact.
Money and proceeds received by prosecuting district attorneys must still be
deposited in a separate law enforcement trust fund with the state
treasurer. A district attorney may still use such funds for investigations
- -- without revealing their nature or targets -- or for other law
enforcement activities at their discretion. The difference is that there
will be accountability due to new financial reporting requirements. The
difference is that 20 percent will be targeted for prevention, education
and treatment, essential elements in a holistic approach to the drug
problem we face. The difference is that the community will be a partner in
making decisions about spending of public funds. This reform will
strengthen law enforcement and community efforts against drugs. Something
that we can all agree upon.

Rep. Antonio Cabral, D-New Bedford, is chairman of the Committee on
Election Laws.