FORFEITURE LAW RIGHTLY DENIES CRIMINALS THEIR ILL-GOTTEN GAINS

The Salt Lake Tribune's June 27 editorial, "An Intervention," lacked a
basic understanding of forfeiture. Among the broad, sweeping statements is
the allegation that law enforcement sets aside "due process, constitutional
rights, budgetary oversight -- to pursue a mission."

Forfeiture has been part of the law for centuries. There is nothing about
it which is unconstitutional or lacking in due process.

The editorial failed to acknowledge the most compelling reason for
forfeiture: to make sure criminals do not profit from crime. We only
encourage crime if we allow criminals to enjoy the fruits of their illegal
activity. Law enforcement uses forfeiture -- not out of desperation, as
claimed in the editorial -- but out of duty. If law enforcement does
nothing, if criminals are allowed to keep their ill-gotten profits, then we
fail to uphold a major tenet of society, that crime should not pay.

It is inaccurate and offensive to suggest that forfeiture encourages law
enforcement to "go after every possible drug stash and courier." Our
incentive is not the money but our sworn commitment to protect the public
from drugs, an effort the editorial refers to as "an impossible crusade."
Given that 80 percent of Utah State Prison inmates have a drug problem, we
must be tenacious in our efforts to prevent drug abuse and stop
drug-related crimes.

But drugs are not the only problem. Good old-fashioned greed is behind many
white-collar crimes, and the only way to punish executives in corporations
like Enron and WorldCom is to take away their mansions and expensive cars.
They should not be allowed to keep these luxuries, which were acquired
fraudulently and often at the expense of their employees.

The editorial got one thing right: the good guys will always be out-spent,
outmanned and out-gunned. Cartels traffic billions of dollars in drugs and
white-collar criminals bilk corporations into bankruptcy. So we can say
it's hopeless and give up, or we can take the ill-gotten gains from those
criminals and use them to strengthen law enforcement. Critics may claim
that such practice is "corrupting," but audits have found absolutely no
abuses of the process.

Meanwhile, Utah's forfeiture law, Initiative B, does not prevent the
federal government from seizing assets, and to date, federal agencies have
seized $5 million in Utah. Normally that money would come back to Utah, but
Initiative B prohibits the state from receiving that money. Instead, those
funds will go to police departments in other states -- to support their
drug task forces, to fund their drug courts, to make their communities
safer -- leaving Utah with nothing but tough choices: raising taxes or
cutting services.

Is this what Utahns intended with Initiative B? I don't think so. Ask any
citizen if a thief who buys a house with stolen money should be allowed to
keep the house. Of course not, because the house never rightfully belonged
to the thief. That is asset forfeiture in a nutshell, and it is something I
believe citizens would support if given the facts.

Unfortunately, the facts were notably absent in The Tribune's editorial.
Instead, it perpetuated the unfounded claims and scare tactics of the
opposition. It was not only an insult to the hard-working people in law
enforcement, but an incredible disservice to your readers.