LEGISLATOR WANTS ASSETS SEIZED IN DRUG RAIDS TO PAY FOR TREATMENT

NEW BEDFORD -- State Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral wants prosecutors and police
to put their money where their mouths are when it comes to funding programs
to treat and prevent drug addiction.

For the sixth year in a row, the New Bedford Democrat has introduced
legislation that would require 20 percent of assets seized in drug raids --
assets known as forfeitures -- to be spent on those programs.

"We can spend all our money on more police officers and additional prison
cells, but that will not resolve the issue by itself," Mr. Cabral said. "We
need to realize that, and we need to stop being petty about areas we
consider our territory, which is the case with confiscated drug money."

That money, Mr. Cabral said, belongs to the community and taxpayers. "It
ought to be spent in the most effective ways, and one component needs to be
prevention and treatment," he said.

But Mr. Cabral's bill faces stiff opposition from prosecutors.

Bristol County District Attorney Paul Walsh said he'd like to see more
treatment alternatives for addicts and drug offenders, but he does not
support funding such programs with money legally forfeited by arrested drug
dealers.

Just how much money might be at stake is unclear. Releasing that
information might jeopardize ongoing undercover investigations, Mr. Walsh
said.

"Sophisticated operations can look at reports like that and figure out
where you're spending money," he explained. "Releasing this could put
people at risk and also give dealers an idea of the focus of our work."

According to state law, police may seize money and other assets tied to
drug-dealing, including vehicles and real estate. Once a case has been
prosecuted, the city, town or state police agency that made the case and
the local district attorney's office split the seized assets equally. The
money can be used for long-range investigations or other law enforcement
purposes deemed appropriate by the district attorney or attorney general.
The district attorney may spend up to 10 percent of the money on drug
treatment, education and programs such as neighborhood crime watches.

District attorneys and the attorney general have to file reports with the
Legislature on money spent for drug treatment, but they do not have to file
public reports on overall drug forfeitures, according to the law.

Mr. Cabral's bill calls for allocating 20 percent of forfeiture money for
treatment, education and prevention efforts within the community. The
remainder would be split between the police and district attorney's office.

A nine-member committee in each district would advise the district attorney
on how to spend the drug-treatment money. The committee would include
providers, patient advocates and recovering addicts.

The proposed legislation also would require district attorneys and the
attorney general's office to file detailed annual reports with the
Legislature on deposit and expenditure of all the drug forfeiture money.

But Mr. Walsh argued that taking money away from police and prosecutors
just when crime is dropping and prisons are filling up does not make sense.
These are resources that have been effective in helping keep down crime, he
said.

Mr. Walsh said he supports spending money on treatment, but he argued the
Legislature should allocate funds for such programs in the budget. What
this is doing, he said of Mr. Cabral's bill, is pitting police and
prosecutors against the people with whom they work closely --
rehabilitation and treatment people -- in a dispute over the funds.

Mr. Cabral said he has been unable to obtain information on the amounts of
money deposited in drug forfeiture accounts. Mr. Walsh also declined to
release that information to The Standard-Times, although he hinted at the
amount.

"We are talking, let's say a couple of hundred thousand dollars of drug
forfeiture money for a county this size," he said. "If there is such a
crying need for this money, instead of taking it away from police and
prosecutors, why not put it directly in the budget?"

Arguing that his office likely already spends a great deal on treatment and
community programs, he said the 20 percent requirement would take away his
department's flexibility.

The debate over how much money to spend on treatment versus enforcement
reaches all the way to Washington, D.C. President Clinton's budget for the
drug war calls for spending 34 percent on drug treatment and prevention, an
amount substance abuse counselors have criticized as too low.

Locally, drug treatment providers have called for more spending on reducing
demand and treating addiction. Putting addicts in prison does not address
the roots of their problem, said Carl Alves, executive director of the New
Bedford Prevention Partnership.

"There are constantly folks here who are frustrated about seeing criminals
put into Faunce Corner (the county jail) and then released," he said. "If
we just give them time without any treatment, then we are just warehousing,
and people are coming out worse than they went in."

The bill has faced little vocal opposition at public hearings in the past
year, but each time has failed to win passage, mostly because of opposition
from prosecutors and law enforcement representatives, Mr. Cabral said.

"I have not heard a comprehensive reason for opposing this legislation,
other than that they believe this is their money and they don't want to
give up money for prevention and education and treatment," he said. "I'm
willing to listen to proposals or language that could be added or changed.
I'm willing to sit down with DAs and police chiefs or anybody else who
would like to discuss the issue."

A hearing on Mr. Cabral's bill has been scheduled for 1 p.m. on April 27,
at the Statehouse in Hearing Room A2.