MINDS DON'T MEET ON FORFEITURE

Measure's Future in the Full House Still Uncertain

Citing unanswered questions, House Speaker Marty Stephens, R-Farr
West, convened a meeting Wednesday between those for and against a
move to overturn an initiative regarding asset forfeitures that was
overwhelmingly passed by voters.

SB175 would repeal parts of Initiative B, restoring the ability of
police to keep the proceeds of such forfeitures.

Passed by the Senate, the bill is now before the House but raised
enough questions for Stephens that he felt a meeting of the minds was
in order. Bringing all the parties together makes it "easier to
pinpoint the discrepancies," Stephens said.

Forfeiture is a civil procedure through which police can seize and
sell property obtained through illegal activity. Initiative B sought
to protect innocent owners by raising the standards of proof and made
it illegal for police to keep forfeiture funds, either through state
or federal proceedings.

Since then, Utah police have been squeezed out of millions in federal
money and cut the number of state forfeitures to a trickle.

Proponents say SB175 -- sponsored by Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West
Jordan, and carried in the House by Rep. Steve Urquhart, R-St. George
- -- will increase protections for the innocent while opponents say it
will make it easier for local police to turn cases over to the federal
system, where the law offers fewer protections.

But the bottom line is about money.

"This provides financial incentive to motivate Utah officers to work
with the federal government to put property into the federal
government," citizen activist Arnold Gaunt said. "Initiative B did not
do away with state forfeitures, but it hasn't been used because the
money that goes there can never come back to law enforcement."

Local police need forfeiture funds in order to continue expensive drug
interdiction efforts, deputy Attorney General Kirk Torgensen said,
adding that in federal cases, that money is mandated back to the local
arresting departments.

SB175 will make state level forfeiture more appealing for local
departments because departments will again be able to recoup their
investigative costs. In both cases, county commission or city
governments will have oversight control over how those funds are
spent, Torgensen said.

Wednesday's meeting was more civil than many earlier debates of the
issue, but Stephens said afterward that he still doesn't know if the
bill be debated before the full House.

"I do still have some concerns if there is going to be more incentive
to put forfeitures into the federal system," he said.