Pubdate: Sat, 04 Jul 2015
Source: Farmington Daily Times (NM)
Copyright: 2015 Farmington Daily Times
Contact:  http://www.daily-times.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/951
Author: Dan Schwartz

CIVIL FORFEITURE LAW PROTECTS PUBLIC BUT CUTS INTO LAW ENFORCEMENT BUDGETS

FARMINGTON - A state law intended to prevent police from seizing 
money or assets from people unless they're convicted of a crime took 
effect this month, and law enforcement officials say it's going to 
cut deeply into their budgets.

Before House Bill 560 became law, most police departments and other 
local law enforcement agencies in New Mexico could auction items they 
had seized and use the revenue to pay for training or equipment. That 
process funds a fourth of the Region II Narcotics Task Force's 
operational finances each year - which was approximately $100,000, 
according to its director, Sgt. Kyle Dowdy.

But now, Region II will lose that money each year, and many other law 
enforcement agencies also will lose out. Under the new law, they're 
required to store seized items and then ship them to the state 
Treasurer's Office in Santa Fe or auction them locally. Either way, 
all the associated revenues are transferred to the state's general fund.

And agencies won't be compensated for storage or shipment of seized 
items, an expense the Farmington Police Department hasn't yet 
calculated, Chief Steve Hebbe said. That is an unfunded mandate, he said.

"We're going to try not to seize," he said.

Rep. Zach Cook, R-Ruidoso, sponsored the bill in the recent 
legislative session, and it passed the House and Senate unanimously. 
Efforts on Thursday to reach Cook by phone were unsuccessful.

The new law prevents police from seizing the property of someone they 
arrested without first proving they committed a crime, a practice 
that was legal before. And it addresses a philosophical question, 
said Rep. Rod Montoya, R-Farmington: "Should people's property be 
seized and potentially even sold without there being a trial and 
proof of guilt?"

Montoya answers, "no," and the new law protects the average citizen 
from such seizures, he said.

Montoya, a new legislator who made law enforcement his primary focus 
in the recent regular legislative session, said lawmakers weren't 
aware of the bill's negative impacts until late in the process. No 
law enforcement officials testified in the House about its impacts, 
he said. Sen. Steve Neville, R-Aztec, said he can't recall any debate 
occurring in the Senate.

Hebbe said no police chiefs were asked about the potential impact of 
the bill, and none gave testimony.

"I don't think that they anticipated how much it's going to hit local 
law enforcement, and we're still trying to figure out how bad it's 
going to hit us," he said.

Montoya said he wants to talk with law enforcement officials to find 
a solution to their problems, but their suggestions must consider the 
essence of the law - protecting the public.

"If this is going to affect them this adversely, we need to take a 
look at it," he said. "I'm not suggesting repeal."

Region II's Dowdy said the new law siphons money from local law 
enforcement and sets up conflicting demands.

Because he's going to lose about a quarter of his revenue, he has to 
figure out how to compensate for that. He's considering asking the 
federal government for more money, but nearly every local law 
enforcement agency in the state will probably be doing the same 
thing, he said. He could also ask the Aztec and Bloomfield police 
departments for more funding - as they already provide some funding 
for the task force - but those budgets are already tight, he said.

He said the task force may have to reduce the amount of equipment it 
buys, such as wiretaps and cameras, and train less often. And 
training, he said, is essential to catching criminals who are 
constantly changing the methods they use to distribute drugs.

The law also complicates the task force's relationship with the 
federal government, which stipulates that the items the task force 
seizes, such as vehicles, are to be used for law-enforcement 
purposes. But now those items are to be liquidated, with the money 
from those sales going to the state's general fund.

"On one hand, you'll have to break the state law, and on the other, 
you'll have to break a federal mandate," he said. "And neither one of 
them you want to do."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom