Initiative B Discussed

VIEWS AIRED ON FORFEITURE PROPOSAL

SALT LAKE CITY - Ogden resident Bert Smith said differences between
proponents and opponents of the asset forfeiture bill could have been
solved a year ago if both sides had done what they did Wednesday night - talk.

"This was a fair and honest discussion," Smith said. "The first one
we've had."

The discussion, moderated by House Speaker Marty Stephens, picked
apart the differences Initiative B proponents have with a legislative
attempt to reform the controversial law, which keeps law enforcement
agencies from keeping seized property for their own use.

The law, a citizen's initiative that passed in 2000 with 69 percent
voter approval, requires forfeited property to go to the state's
school fund. The law also requires law enforcement officers to prove a
person's guilt before taking property.

Some, however, said the law went too far and robs the state of
millions of dollars collected in federal seizures.

Senate Bill 175, which has passed the Senate and is headed for the
House, corrects those problems by allowing law enforcement agencies
access to the seized funds with legislative oversight. It also opens
the door for agencies to receive federal money.

Another key provision of the bill is that it purportedly strengthens
protection of innocent owners by including "interest holder"
protections.

Opponent Arnold Gaunt, of Forfeiture Endangers American Rights, said
the bill would open the door to allowing police to self-fund their
policing activities as they did in the past -- creating a conflict of
interest.

Gaunt said the bill would also encourage Utah police to go through
federal agencies rather than local forfeiture because federal law
requires that 80 percent of the proceeds from forfeited assets go back
to the local law enforcement agency while the state provision would
put it in a dedicated law enforcement fund where agencies would have
to apply for the money.

Utah Deputy Attorney General Kirk Torgensen and other law enforcement
officers rebutted claims that the law would encourage local police to
turn to federal enforcement in order to get money directly. He said
local agencies often partner with federal enforcement officers because
drug and fraud cases cross state lines, where local and state police
have no authority.

"The bigger cases typically go to federal agencies," he said. "The
state of Utah is losing millions of dollars that's going somewhere
else."

He also refuted charges that letting law enforcement agencies get
forfeiture money is a conflict of interest.

"Every cop I've ever known wants to make a case against a crook," he
said. "That's not an improper motive. We have a court system and due
process that monitors everything we do. This isn't cops run amok. We
have to get a seizure warrant and an arrest warrant."

Torgensen said agencies can no longer collect the money spent
investigating and prosecuting crime from criminal proceeds,
diminishing their ability to fight crime. He gave an example of a
small police department that racked up storage fees from a vehicle
involved in a drug bust but could not be reimbursed from forfeitures
because of Initiative B.

"A district judge ruled that under Initiative B, we cannot get costs
and expenses out of forfeiture," Torgensen said.

Janet Jenson, the attorney who crafted Initiative B, said under the
current law, agencies can claim costs and storage fees from the assets.

Stephens seized on the differences saying the problem could be that
the law needs to be clarified.

"I recognize that the devil's in the details, but that's where we can
get some clarity," he said.