STATE TARGETS FORFEITURE LAW

State-initiated property seizures are at a standstill, and Utah law
enforcement has given up more than $2.5 million in federal money since the
current drug forfeiture law was approved by voters two years ago.

Legislators hope to fix some of what they say are the unintended
consequences of a law that makes seizing property associated with drug
crimes nearly impossible for police.

Proposed amendments to the law are under review by state and local
prosecutors and are scheduled for presentation to the Legislature's Law
Enforcement and Criminal Justice interim committee later this month.

"I think everyone wants to protect innocent people from having their
property seized," Kirk Torgensen, the attorney general's chief criminal
deputy, said. "The issue is this (voter initiative) law created all kinds
of problems unknowingly."

A subcommittee of the state's Commission on Crime and Juvenile Justice has
drafted some fixes to the law, which received an overwhelming amount of
voter support in the 2000 election.

Police and prosecutors were stymied at the outset of the law's
implementation, however, and sued to have it struck down in federal court.

Although a section of the law was clarified in the ruling, the judge deemed
it was constitutional.

Torgensen said the law essentially abolished the ability of local police
agencies to pursue asset seizures through drug forfeiture cases.

"State forfeitures came almost to a halt because there were so many
problems the initiative created," Torgensen said.

The current law inflicts such strict liability on law enforcement in
seizure cases that agencies have found it wiser to simply stop, Salt Lake
County assistant district attorney Clark Harms said.

If, for example, a seizing agency at some point in the forfeiture process
agrees that some or all of the property can be returned to the defendant,
the agency automatically has to pay all attorney fees.

Harms said one of the proposed changes leaves that to the discretion of a
judge.

Both Harms and Torgensen said the law has had a significant impact because
of the loss of federal dollars.

"Any of that property seized federally and forfeited federally, 80 percent
of it would have come back to local law enforcement in Utah without local
law enforcement even involved in the case," Harms said. "We don't get that
money."

In fiscal year 2001, the Drug Enforcement Agency had forfeitures of more
than $1.4 million, and the next fiscal year it was $1.2 million, he said.

The law also technically wiped out a state restricted fund account that
acted as a repository for any proceeds from state agency forfeitures.

Harms said $179,000 is left in that account that no one can touch until the
statute is changed.

"That is where the share of money went to await legislative appropriation.
Initiative B did away with that account, and no one knows what to do with it."

Both Harms and Torgensen said the proposed changes keep the heart and
intent of Utah's forfeiture law in place, while making it more workable for
law enforcement.

The elevated burden of proof in civil forfeiture proceedings, which went
from a preponderance of evidence to "clear and convincing" evidence,
remains in place.

It is proposed that state and local law enforcement be eligible to receive
up to 50 percent of the proceeds from property ordered seized and retained,
but the allocation of those assets has to be overseen by the agency's
political entity.

Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, said he's willing to sponsor legislation to
amend Utah's forfeiture law.

"There's some agreement we'd like to see some changes made in the next
session."