FORFEITURE BILL SHARPLY DIVIDING SIDES

House Speaker Marty Stephens moderated a mini-peace summit on
Wednesday to hear arguments for and against a volatile bill that would
allow law enforcement agencies to pocket criminals' asset
forfeitures.

And while the meeting was probably the most civil on the topic, it
failed to bring together warring factions of conservative citizen
activists who oppose the measure and police and prosecutors who support it.

The talks also failed to produce a verdict from Stephens, who said he
needs "a day or two of thought" before making a decision on the bill.

Senate Bill 175 would give the money and property seized in drug busts
and other crimes to law enforcement agencies, where it used to flow
before 69 percent of Utah voters in 2000 approved a ballot initiative
that diverted such funds to public schools.

The citizen-approved law was intended to prevent police from zealously
impounding the cars or seizing the property of innocent third parties
in criminal cases.

But law enforcement officials and prosecutors complain it has stopped
millions in federally seized assets from flowing into Utah. Under
federal law, this money can only go to law enforcement agencies.

It also bars law enforcement agencies from recouping money spent on
expensive sting operations, undermining "an important crime-fighting
tool," said Deputy Utah Attorney General Kirk Torgensen.

Residents did agree that police should be able to recoup costs and
said that is the intent of the current law, despite a state judge's
ruling to the contrary. They also agree that SB175 retains and
slightly enhances protections for innocent property owners -- but only
for state-seized assets.

The trouble with SB175 is that it would encourage police to push more
forfeitures through the less restrictive federal system, said Salt
Lake attorney Janet Jensen.

Stephens agreed, saying "I still have problems with that."