MISSOURI SENATE TO INVESTIGATE FORFEITURES

JEFFERSON CITY - The Missouri Senate will investigate why drug money
seized by state and local police has not been turned over to public
education.

Sen. Edward Quick, president pro tem of the Senate and a Liberty
Democrat, said Thursday that he would choose a committee ``very, very
soon'' to begin holding hearings on the matter.

In the past two weeks a flurry of ballot measures have been proposed
to address the diversion of drug money from schools, and Quick said
hearings would sort through the facts and help lawmakers think out
their remedies.

``This is not being handled properly,'' Quick said. ``Everyone wants
to get involved. Being aggressive can be good. But aggressive is not
always the answer.''

Earlier this month The Kansas City Star reported that police were
diverting millions of dollars that under state law should have been
turned over to schools. State law requires forfeitures - the legal
term for taking drug money - to go through a state court, which then
usually sends them to education.

The Star found that police instead often give the money they seize to
a federal agency - such as the Drug Enforcement Administration - which
keeps a percentage, then returns the rest to police. State law
prohibits police from making such direct transfers to a federal agency.

In a letter to Quick this week, Sen. Harry Wiggins, a Kansas City
Democrat, described The Star stories as ``disturbing,'' and suggested
that a Senate committee could come up with workable remedies.

``It seems to me that a Senate Committee ... should open a series of
expedited hearings on this and expose the whole thing before we let
the state get caught in a mess it can't handle which could be very
embarrassing to the governor,'' Wiggins wrote. ``Maybe we need
legislation. Maybe we need policy direction, but we need
something.''

Since the stories were published, legislators have introduced several
ballot measures that would amend the constitution with the approval of
voters.

Other legislators are drafting bills that wouldn't require a
constitutional amendment, but would strengthen requirements for
reporting of seized money.

Attorney General Jay Nixon has coordinated a ballot measure of his own
and said he is considering other legislation to stop the flow of
forfeitures to federal agencies.

Many of the measures would split the drug money between police and
schools instead of sending it all to schools. Some lawmakers believe a
split would give police more of an incentive to follow the law.

Spokesmen for state and federal law enforcement agencies have said
they believe the current law is confusing and that they are doing
nothing wrong.

Quick said he is considering two committees to hold hearings: the Ways
and Means Committee, whose chairman is Wiggins, and the Civil and
Criminal Jurisprudence Committee.

Quick said Ways and Means would be a good choice because of the
experience of Wiggins, who is a former federal prosecutor, an attorney
and a longtime legislator who has focused on law enforcement.

That committee includes Sen. Harold Caskey, a Butler Democrat who has
argued that police should receive at least a portion of the drug money
they seize.

Two other members, Sens. Wayne Goode, a St. Louis Democrat, and
Francis Flotron, a Chesterfield Republican, have opposed allowing the
law enforcement agencies that actually seize the money to keep any of
it.

Goode has proposed legislation that would split the money between
education and the Department of Public Safety. None of the money would
go back to the seizing agency.

Another member, Sen. John Schneider, a Florissant Democrat, also has
proposed legislation that would split the money. The seizing law
enforcement agency would receive 40 percent.

Also on Thursday, a letter written by Wiggins and Flotron was being
sent to Nixon, formally asking him for a legal opinion on ``how drug
seizures and forfeitures should work under current law.''

``It is apparent, Mr. Attorney General, that some of the concurrent
chaos is based on honest misunderstanding of the law and how it must
be interpreted and applied,'' according to the letter. ``We are asking
you for a detailed opinion on how this matter can be resolved.''

The letter asks Nixon to answer several questions,
including:

Who may seize what and under what circumstance?

Does the current law demand distribution of all such funds to
appropriate school districts?

How can and should money and proceeds be distributed to school
districts?

What is the proper relationship for state and local law enforcement
agencies to have with the U.S. Department of Justice and federal law
enforcement agencies?

Are records such as incident reports, arrest reports and DAG-71
reports, which include the circumstances of seizures, public records
subject to the state Sunshine Law?