HOUSE VOTES TO PREVENT POLICE FROM KEEPING DRUG MONEY

The U.S. House tried Thursday to do what Missouri legislators and courts
have not yet been able to do -- prevent state and local police from keeping
drug money that is supposed to go somewhere else.

The House passed a bill that requires state and local police to follow
their own laws rather than federal laws when they seize drug money and
property.

Many law enforcement agencies have not done that in Missouri. Under state
law, drug money seized by local police is supposed to go through a state
court, which usually sends it to public education. But The Kansas City Star
reported in January that police had found a way to divert millions of
dollars and keep it.

They simply turn the money over to a federal agency, which takes a portion
and gives the rest back to police.

The bill that passed Thursday included several provisions that would make
it harder for federal law enforcement agencies to confiscate money and
property in suspected drug crimes. The bill, sponsored by Reps. Henry Hyde,
an Illinois Republican, and John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, passed 375
to 48.

All Missouri representatives voted for it.

The amendment that addresses the Missouri situation was added this week in
response to the stories published in The Star, Hyde's office said.

However, Thursday's action doesn't solve the Missouri problem.

First the bill must go to the Senate, where its fate is uncertain. And if
it passes there, Missouri officials said, it won't entirely close loopholes
police are using.

Still, several state legislators who are working on their own forfeiture
reform bills said Thursday they welcomed help from Congress.

"I'm just really glad to hear this because I didn't know the federal
government had listened to our pleas that we had problems," said Rep. Jim
Kreider, a Nixa Democrat and speaker pro tem.

Kreider is heading a Missouri House interim committee that will begin
meeting in late summer to review state forfeiture laws.

State Auditor Claire McCaskill also said she was pleased by the
Hyde-Conyers bill. McCaskill has surveyed the seizure process of almost all
law enforcement in Missouri and is conducting several audits of police
department seizure funds. She expects to report her findings to the
legislature in late summer.

"I think probably the very best way to clear up any abuses of circumvention
of state law is to change federal law," McCaskill said. "If you don't
change the federal law, enforcement of the state law will continue to be a
very time-consuming and onerous process."

A Department of Justice document shows that in Missouri police have turned
over to the federal government in three years an estimated $19 million and
received back $15 million.

Stephen Hill, U.S. Attorney for the Western District, would not comment on
Hyde's amendment.

But in the past, Hill and other law enforcement officials have defended
their actions, saying they don't break state law.

State Attorney General Jay Nixon, who represents the Highway Patrol, could
not be reached for comment because he was out of state, his spokesman said.

Officials for the federal Drug Enforcement Administration did not return
phone calls this week.

The agency has a policy that seizures should be pursued in state court if
they were part of a state investigation. But in March, the agency said the
responsibility to follow state laws belongs to police.

"Each state and local agency is expected to follow all appropriate laws and
regulations," the agency said in a written statement. The agency has
refused to comment further.

For their part, local and state police have maintained they did not violate
a state law that specifically prohibits them from transferring a seizure to
a federal agency.

Police say they never actually seize the money or property they transfer to
a federal agency; They are merely holding it until a federal agency can
"officially" seize it.

John Waldeck, an attorney for the Kansas City school board, raised concerns
that Hyde's bill would not cover the seizure issue.

"There has to be a bear trap in any legislation that they put out which
clearly establishes what a state seizure is," Waldeck said. "That all has
to be spelled out in spades so you can't monkey with the circumstances."

The school district has filed a class action lawsuit against all law
enforcement in Missouri to recover all drug money police have seized since
1986.

On Friday, state Sen. Harry Wiggins said the seizure issue would be
corrected in Missouri.

"We can address that here, and I will find a way to do that," Wiggins said.

U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican who helped move the forfeiture
bill to the House floor, mocked the police stance on when a seizure becomes
a seizure.

" `We didn't seize the money -- we just held the money,' " Blunt said. "I
wouldn't want to be on their side if they litigated this. I think they
would lose."

The Missouri provision of the Hyde-Conyers bill would require the proceeds
from a federal forfeiture to be distributed according to state law when a
state or local law enforcement agency has been "directly involved" in
seizing the money or property.

Many Missouri legislators have said they do not want police agencies
generating revenue for themselves because they fear it leads to conflicts
of interest that can lead to illegal searches and seizures.

Hyde made that argument Thursday during debate on the bill.

"You don't have a chance at equal justice," he said.

The bill is Hyde's latest attempt to correct police abuses when taking
people's property. In fact, he has written a book on the subject.

Besides the Missouri provision, the measure also will require the federal
government to prove property it wants to keep is related to a crime.
Currently the owner must prove the property is "innocent."

The measure also provides attorneys for people who are poor and eliminates
a bond that must be paid by the owner in order to contest a seizure,
usually $5,000 or 10 percent of the value of the property.

The forfeiture issue has brought together an odd consortium in support of
Hyde's bill: conservative and liberal politicians such as Hyde and
Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank, the ACLU and the National Rifle
Association.

The bill now goes to the Senate, where it has been reported that the
Justice Department and powerful law enforcement lobbying associations are
gearing up to oppose the bill.