PROPOSED CHANGE TO FORFEITURE LAW DRAWS DEBATE

A law enforcement news conference Wednesday supporting a change in the
state's forfeiture law ended in shouting matches between officers and
officials and those opposing changes to the legislation.

The bill, which is being drafted by the Utah Attorney General's Office,
would change who gets money netted from criminal forfeitures. The office
has yet to find a legislative sponsor.

The money would first go to crime victims under the proposal. Half of the
remaining money would go to drug treatment programs, including drug courts,
and the other half for crime fighting, said Kirk Torgensen, chief deputy of
the Utah Attorney General's criminal division.

Senate Majority Whip John L. Valentine, R-Orem, withdrew Senate Bill 31 on
Wednesday, which allowed assets seized from drug dealers and other
criminals to be allocated to the state. Valentine said his original bill
did not contain victim restitution.

Bill opponents are concerned that property will be unjustly seized and
misused by the state.

They say this measure would undo Initiative B, which was approved by 69
percent of Utah voters in the November 2000 election. That law was intended
to remove the profit incentive from forfeitures and prevent police from
zealously impounding cars or seizing property of innocent third parties in
criminal cases.

Terry Trease of West Jordan spoke strongly against the bill, comparing
asset forfeiture to piracy, and attacking Attorney General Mark Shurtleff's
involvement with the bill.

"According to what they just said, this is going straight to Mark
(Shurtleff)," he said, referring to assets seized.

Supporters were just as vocal, accusing the bill's opponents of "siding
with the criminal element on this issue."

"When criminals support something, I don't," said Michael Sibbitt of the
Utah Parole Board.

Utah Valley State College Police Chief Tracy Marrott defended the bill,
saying prison time isn't enough of a deterrent for drug dealers who know
their assets are safe.

He said he supports the bill because of the extra funds it will bring to
Utah County law enforcement. Proponents say law enforcement needs
forfeiture money to combat drug dealers and the law keeps the state from
claiming $3.93 million in federal money.

"We've had our hands tied; we haven't been able to get assets from
forfeiture," Marrott said after the press conference. "It doesn't seem that
we ever have enough, but this will allow us to do a little more."

Lynette Gurr, the window of slain Roosevelt Police Chief Cecil Gurr, said
the legislation is needed for the fight against drugs. Cecil Gurr was shot
to death outside a convenience store on July 6, 2001. Gurr, a 27-year
veteran of the force, was Utah's longest-serving police chief. Lee Roy
Wood, a convicted felon and reputed drug dealer, was convicted of the murder.

"We need to protect the innocent. It costs a lot of money to fight drugs,"
Lynette Gurr said.

Forfeiture proceeds are supposed to go to compensate crime victims, pay
legal fees of innocent forfeiture victims and help schools. However, a
recent state audit found that those groups have not received any money
since the initiative went into effect.

Police and prosecutors have sued to overturn the law. Last April, U.S.
District Judge Dee Benson threw out just one provision, saying Utah police
can turn over property to the federal government without an order from a
state judge.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.