BATTLE IS BREWING OVER PROPERTY-SEIZURE PROPOSAL

Measure Would Destroy Initiative B, a Critic Says

A contentious battle over funding crime-fighting through the seizure
of property is brewing on Capitol Hill after the debut of SB175 Wednesday.

The bill would rewrite Utah's Uniform Forfeiture Procedures Act (UFPA)
and again allow police departments to collect forfeiture funds through
state and federal prosecutions.

UFPA, which was passed into law as Initiative B during the 2000
election, has cost the state millions in federal crime-fighting funds,
Buttars said. Some 70 percent of voters supported UFPA.

"My bill goes right the heart of preserving Initiative B and even
strengthens it," Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, said, adding that
out-of-state money funded that effort. "They added some language that
protected property owners, but the unintended consequence was the
elimination of our efforts at drug interdiction."

In Daniel Newby's opinion, however, SB175 is the exact opposite of
what Utah citizens wanted in 2000. Newby is one of the original
backers of the UFPA and a founder of the citizen group Accountability
Utah, which has fought to preserve the law.

"It will effectively nullify and destroy Initiative B," said Newby.
"It also restores perverse incentives for law enforcement to
confiscate the property of innocent property owners to increase their
budgets."

The bill is set for a two-hour debate before the Senate Judiciary
Committee today.

Asset forfeiture is a civil procedure through which law enforcement
can seize and sell the property of convicted criminals who have
acquired the possessions through illegal activity. The process is used
most frequently in drug crimes.

Critics say the process encourages unlawful seizures and puts innocent
property owners at risk, while police departments pad their budget
with profits from forfeiture sales.

Before UFPA, forfeiture proceeds went back to police departments to
fund equipment, training and other costs. Since the measure, that
money was redirected through the state treasurer's office for deposit
in the Uniform School Fund.

Very little money has actually come to the state, however, because law
enforcement either halted it or partnered with the federal Drug
Enforcement Administration for federal investigation and
prosecution.

A January 2003 accounting of state forfeiture funds by state auditor
Ed Alter found that district courts had continued to award the money
to police and asked Attorney General Mark Shurtleff to retrieve some
$297,999 for local governments. That money has since been returned to
the state, deputy attorney general Kirk Torgenson said.

Since July 1, 2003, the state has received $483,448.47 in funds,
according to an accounting provided by the auditor's office.

SB175 preserves about 85 percent of UFPA's intent, Torgensen said.
Bill drafters sought to increase protections for innocent property
owners and lien holders, as well as shortening the time that
prosecutors have to file forfeiture cases, from 90 to 60 days. It
prevents forfeiture funds from being spent on officer salaries and
bonuses.

Most important to law enforcement, it will bring some $4 million-plus
in federal money back to Utah, Torgensen said.

SB175, Newby said, is a bill drafted in secret by a small, select
group of people, which did not include citizens.

In an effort to stop the bill, Accountability Utah blanketed Buttars'
West Jordan district with fliers that call him a "dangerous man." The
flier includes Buttars' home address and phone number. A community
meeting is planned at the West Jordan library, 1970 W. 7800 South, at
10:15 a.m. Saturday. More information is available at their Web site,
http://www.accountabilityutah.org/, Newby said.