FORFEITURE CONFUSION

The debate over asset forfeiture in Colorado, prompted by the late
introduction of Rep. Mitchell's HB 1404, has been heated over the past few
weeks.

The debate has created confusion among citizens, and even among such astute
columnists as your own Bob Ewegen ( "Sorry, Ben: We couldn't keep it,"
April 13 column). I am profoundly concerned that too little thought has
been has been devoted to this reform, and that passage of HB 1404 will be a
step backward in efforts to battle public nuisances in Colorado. Here are
on ly a few of the reasons why: Many of the arguments in favor of changing
the status quo involve cases where only one side of the story has been
told. Many of those stories, told to illustrate abuse of the forfeiture
laws, actually involve seizures by municipalities, and HB 1404 has no
effect on that process. Ewegen falls prey to this unfortunate mistake by
citing three examples in his column that all involved city ordinances, not
the state forfeiture statute.

The issue of gaining a criminal conviction before the civil forfeiture
proceeding can go forward has also been part of this debate.

At present, the civil and criminal processes are separate and independent,
and they should remain so. Prosecutors are careful not to go forward on
criminal cases just to strengthen a position on a civil forfeiture, and
vice versa.

Tying the processes together removes that important distinction and may
create serious ethical dilemmas.

The criminal and civil forfeiture processes each have due process
requirements already in place that protect innocent property owners.
Citizens should also understand that there are many cases in which criminal
activity needs to be halted, but a criminal conviction won't necessarily occur.

One example is when law enforcement finds a large amount of drugs and cash
in a meth lab and no single suspect can be sufficiently linked to the
operation.

In this type of case, the meth lab can be shut down, the drugs and money
confiscated, and the neighborhood can be restored, all without a criminal
conviction. The separate tools of the criminal pro cess and the civil
forfeiture process had a powerful impact on crack houses in the past
decade. These same tools should be fully available for this decade's
growing menace: meth labs.

Colorado citizens want safe neighbor hoods and protection from criminal
activity.

Colorado's present asset forfeiture procedure has been an important tool
for us to accomplish that mission.

Unless you are involved in criminal activity, the proposed changes do not
make a better law. HB 1404 needs to go back to the drawing board.

BILL RITTER JR. Denver District Attorney