Pubdate: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 Source: Herald, The (WA) Copyright: 2001 The Daily Herald Co. Contact: http://www.heraldnet.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/190 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture) DRUG PROPERTY FORFEITURE DOESN'T NEED OLYMPIA 'FIX' Whoever thought Republican Sen. Val Stevens and the American Civil Liberties Union would be on the same side? Their joint venture to dismantle the state's property forfeiture laws used in drug seizures gives new meaning to the phrase "opposites attract." Ultra conservatives and ultra liberals who have signed on to Senate Bill 5935, and its sister bill House Bill 1995, are on the prowl to stop what they see as the trampling of due process when law enforcement seizes assets believed to be purchased with drug money. However, while pushing the bill under the guise of property rights, they're actually trampling all over due process that already exists in our judicial system. Current law requires law enforcement to provide probable cause to seize items. It's not like a law officer can walk through a home after a drug bust and say, "Hey, a Nintendo. My kid could use one of those." Officers have to have solid reason to believe the items (such as expensive cars and electronic gadgets found along with drugs in dilapidated home) were purchased with drug money. Next comes a judicial review in order to even declare the items forfeited. Once that happens, people still have 45 to 90 days to request a hearing and claim the belongings. Many law enforcement officials have already argued against the bill. If passed, it would destroy most departments' narcotics units because the money seized in sizeable drug busts is used to fund the programs, officials said. While, it's valid to argue the negative impact the bill would have on departments, that's not enough. However, opponents stand on solid ground when they argue that the Legislature is overstepping its bounds. As Snohomish County Sheriff Rick Bart pointed out, the bill proposes creating a new state committee to "review all asset forfeiture proceedings to ensure fairness." "Who is this oversight committee going to be? How are they going to be financed?" Bart asks. "It sound like more bureaucracy to me." If defendants in such cases believe they have been treated unfairly, they should appeal through the court system. The opportunity is already available to them. The Legislature has no place usurping judicial authority by creating a committee to act as judge and jury. Our Legislature is famous for handing down unfunded mandates. This would end up being a version of one of them. Do lawmakers really want law enforcement agencies to shut down their narcotics divisions? It's unlikely legislators plan to step up and offer more money from the state budget to compensate. The bill is filled with unrealistic thinking. Blocking property seizures until a conviction will allow defendants to pass the property on to someone else so they can retrieve it when they get out of prison. Then there's the argument that law enforcement shouldn't benefit from the forfeited assets. Who else should? Why shouldn't drug dealers foot the bill instead of taxpayers? The Legislature is already looking at bills to reduce sentences for small-time drug users and put them in treatment instead. But small-time drug users shouldn't be confused with big-time drug dealers who prey on our communities. And the Legislature has no business preying on the judicial system. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake