LAWMAKERS HEAR HOW FORFEITURE LAWS WORK IN THEORY, IN
REALITY

After hearing hours of testimony Thursday about how state forfeiture
laws are supposed to work, many legislators had vanished by the time
two citizens spoke of their problems after police seized their property.

One of them was Terrance Frelix Sr., 34, of Minneapolis. He and a
business partner owned some properties and were running behind on a
mortgage in 2006, Frelix testified at a hearing. His partner
borrowed $4,000 and had just given Frelix the money when a Metro Gang
Strike Force officer took them in for questioning.

Police released them without charging them with a crime. The strike
force later informed Frelix they were forfeiting the cash and
Frelix's truck.

Frelix had been outside his vehicle when police swooped in and --
unbeknownst to him, he said -- a relative was smoking a marijuana
joint inside. Police said the small amount of marijuana was the
reason they were forfeiting the property.

Frelix went to court but hasn't gotten his property back. He said
he's still out the $4,000, plus $3,500 in attorney's fees. His truck
is gone, along with the property management equipment inside.

"Even to this day, I'm still frustrated," he said after Thursday's
hearing.

Earlier in the hearing, legislators had been walked through flow
charts and other documents explaining how the state's forfeiture laws
work.

After hearing Frelix's account, Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park,
said the information about what was happening on the streets was
"nowhere near what happens on the flow chart."

Thursday marked the fourth joint legislative committee hearing held
in the wake of the Metro Gang Strike Force's demise.

An independent review of the now-defunct strike force, released in
August, found some officers seized money and property from people
never accused of a crime, then took the property for personal use.
The FBI is investigating.

The August report said some gang strike force members felt they
needed to obtain forfeiture funds to keep the multi-agency task force
running after its budget was cut.

The review panel recommended the Legislature "examine whether
Minnesota's current forfeiture statute should be revised to provide
more protections against the type of conduct described in this
report." Legislators heard about how the law works, but Thursday's
hearing wasn't intended to cover suggested changes.

In basic terms, under state law, police can seize all money, guns,
cars, "precious metals, and precious stones" found in proximity to
drugs, drug manufacturing or distribution operations. The property
can be seized without drug-or gang-related criminal charges filed
against the owner.

The law requires property owners be notified within 60 days of their
right to try to get their property back through "judicial
determination." If the owner files no claim within that time, the
property is considered unclaimed and it's forfeited.

A legislative auditor's report on the gang strike force released in
May found the gang unit couldn't document that it had served seizure
notices in 202 of 545 cash seizures that auditors tested. Frelix told
legislators he wasn't initially served notice and that his attorney
had to discover where his property was.

Because it is a civil statute, citizens who challenge forfeiture must
prove they acquired the property through legal means.

Police and prosecutors told legislators Thursday about safeguards
they take to ensure property is properly seized and forfeited.

Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder, questioned whether the forfeiture
laws needed to be changed if law enforcement is given proper training
and current statutes are followed.

"Do we need to overhaul everything?" asked Cornish, who is the Lake
Crystal police chief.

Stearns County Sheriff John Sanner said, "If there are officers that
are misusing these tools ... either intentionally or unintentionally,
they have got to be held accountable because it's a black eye for
everyone in law enforcement."

But he continued by asking legislators to consider that the
"overwhelming majority of task forces" are doing things correctly and
said sweeping legislative reform would be "unwarranted and damaging."

One problem with the administrative forfeiture process, as was
evidenced by the problems with the Metro Gang Strike Force, is it
"puts too much authority and too much discretion into the hands of
law enforcement officers," said Howard Bass, American Civil Liberties
of Minnesota board member. Because there are no real checks and
balances, "this creates a potential for abuse," he said.

Because forfeitures are a civil matter, public defenders aren't
assigned to such cases. Many people can't afford to hire private
attorneys; if they can, attorneys' fees can "vastly ... exceed" the
value of property taken, Bass said.