ASSET-FORFEITURE PLAN 'IS DEAD'

AMERICAN FORK - Heeding the pleas of constituents, Sen. John Valentine
decided Saturday to halt his efforts to retool the state's asset-forfeiture
laws this legislative session.

"Senate Bill 31 is dead for this year," the Orem Republican said while at
the American Fork Library, where some 100 forfeiture opponents - most from
Valentine's District 14 - gathered to ask questions about the bill.

After 90 minutes of a somewhat heated debate, the declaration brought
cheers and applause.

But the news angered the state's top prosecutor, Attorney General Mark
Shurtleff, who said we "owe it to law enforcement" to get a new forfeiture
law passed.

Many of those at the meeting were responsible for ballot measure Initiative
B in 1999, which sought to prevent the unlawful seizure and sales of
property by police agencies.

"I can't get all of the problems solved in the time we have left,"
Valentine said after the meeting. "They have raised legitimate issues with
the bill, so I've decided that I will no longer pursue it."

Shurtleff said he will try to move the bill forward without Valentine.

"These people won't be satisfied unless we do nothing. I can't believe
(Valentine) would give in to a bunch of lies," Shurtleff said. "We're not
going after their money, we're not going after their homes and their
property. . . . It just isn't true."

He plans to shop it to other legislators and see if someone will offer it
as a substitute to other legislation. The issue, he notes, was studied at
length in legislative interim committee.

The practice of asset forfeiture has been used mostly in drug
investigations. Profits from property sales have gone back to police
agencies for their use and has helped agencies statewide access millions in
federal law enforcement funds. Since the passage of Initiative B, many
agencies have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Salt Lake County
Sheriff's Office, for example, estimates it has lost as much as $500,000,
deputy Peggy Faulkner said.

Forfeiture opponents see the practice as unconstitutional and say that many
innocent people have had their property and possessions wrongfully
confiscated, never to be returned.

Under Initiative B, police are not allowed to keep the proceeds from
forfeiture sales. Instead the money is supposed to go into the Uniform
School Fund. But since the passage of the initiative, forfeitures have all
but stopped, and no money has been deposited in state coffers.

An investigation by the state auditor last summer found that although 28
seizure cases in Davis, Salt Lake and Weber counties should have brought
money to the state last year, the funds were instead awarded by the courts
back to police. The Attorney General's Office is investigating those claims.

Prosecutors have said that Initiative B is unenforceable in part because it
conflicts with other state forfeiture laws.

Valentine's SB31 was intended to balance the interests on both sides of the
debate.

Law enforcement likes the bill because it would restore the ability to
police to take property of convicted criminals. The money recouped from
property sales would have been divided between statewide drug court
programs and a new grant program for police agencies to be administered by
the the Attorney General's Office.

SB31 would also free up some $3.8 million in federal funds that have been
earmarked for Utah police agencies but cannot be awarded because of the
current laws.

And proponents say it also provides for additional protections for property
owners and adds provisions for other parties, like lien holders, who may
have an indirect interest in property.

But opponents argued Saturday that SB31 goes too far in undermining the
initiative efforts. Because police and the courts stand to benefit from
profits, the bill creates a financial incentive for forfeitures to occur.
And making the attorney general the gatekeeper of those proceeds sets up a
political incentive for that elected office.

Opponents of SB31 said Saturday they will be watching closely to see if the
bill is resurrected by others.

"There are other mechanisms by which the Legislature can revive things,"
said Arnold Gaunt of Ogden, a citizen activist who helped drive Initiative
B. "I've seen it happen in the past."