POLICE AGAIN MAY GET TO SEIZE ASSETS

The Senate Gives a Preliminary OK to Forfeiture Bill

Utah's law enforcement agencies will again be allowed to seize and
sell the ill-gotten gains of criminals under a bill moving through the
Utah Senate.

SB175 reworks the state law that curbed the practice of asset
forfeiture by police. The bill received preliminary approval in Senate
on a 20-7 vote Wednesday, after a handful of minor amendments.

Should SB175 become law, it would substantially change a state ballot
initiative that made it illegal for law enforcement to keep forfeiture
funds. The initiative passed with 69 percent of the vote in 2000.

The bill would increase protections for innocent property owners and
lien holders and fix the "unintended consequence" of cutting police
off from state and federal money to help them fight the war on drugs,
sponsoring Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, said.

"We have gotten to the point where we have said to drug distributors
that crime pays," said Buttars, who enlisted some 20
co-sponsors.

Forfeiture of cash and property tied to a crime occur primarily in
drug cases and can be done either through state courts, or in
partnership with federal agencies. Federal revenue sharing brings 80
percent of forfeiture proceeds back to Utah police.

Under Initiative B, state monies have been turned over to the Uniform
School Fund, and federal funds have been piling up in Washington, D.C.
Some say Utah has lost as much as $5 million since the initiative
became law in 2001.

SB175 would bring that money back, but funnel it into a state
restricted account, from which police can apply for grants. Under
SB175, forfeiture money can be used for training or equipment, but not
for officer salaries, overtime pay or retirement funds.

In an effort to preserve the intent of Initiative B, Sen. Dave Thomas,
R-South Weber, proposed an amendment to require state and federal
agencies to agree to use state forfeiture procedures when their
investigations result in the seizing of property.

Federal law offers too few protections for property owners, Thomas
said.

Senators voted down the proposal, saying that that federal cops and
the U.S. Attorney's office weren't likely to enter into such
agreements. Some also said the proposal would violate federal
supremacy law.

"We're not talking about a cooperation with Russia, we're not talking
about a cooperation with Nazi Germany, or with the United Nations,
we're talking about a cooperation with our state or our city agencies
and our federal government," said Sen. Greg Bell, R-Fruit Heights.
"This is the spirit of vigilantism when we start to say, 'We don't
play this way, we do things different here.' "

Sen. Scott Jenkins, R-Plain City, said he could not cast a vote
against Utah's electorate.

"Sixty-nine percent of people out there who worry about the police,
who worry about the judicial system ending up with the materials that
they forfeited . . . they worried enough about it that they passed
Initiative B," Jenkins said. "We are substantially changing Initiative
B. I don't think that it's right that we're doing this. Everybody's
got a good reason why we should be doing it, but I don't buy all those
reasons."