Pubdate: 15 Mar 1999 Source: Standard-Times (MA) Copyright: 1999 The Standard-Times Contact: http://www.s-t.com/ Author: Polly Saltonstall, Standard-Times staff writer LEGISLATOR WANTS ASSETS SEIZED IN DRUG RAIDS TO PAY FOR TREATMENT NEW BEDFORD -- State Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral wants prosecutors and police to put their money where their mouths are when it comes to funding programs to treat and prevent drug addiction. For the sixth year in a row, the New Bedford Democrat has introduced legislation that would require 20 percent of assets seized in drug raids -- assets known as forfeitures -- to be spent on those programs. "We can spend all our money on more police officers and additional prison cells, but that will not resolve the issue by itself," Mr. Cabral said. "We need to realize that, and we need to stop being petty about areas we consider our territory, which is the case with confiscated drug money." That money, Mr. Cabral said, belongs to the community and taxpayers. "It ought to be spent in the most effective ways, and one component needs to be prevention and treatment," he said. But Mr. Cabral's bill faces stiff opposition from prosecutors. Bristol County District Attorney Paul Walsh said he'd like to see more treatment alternatives for addicts and drug offenders, but he does not support funding such programs with money legally forfeited by arrested drug dealers. Just how much money might be at stake is unclear. Releasing that information might jeopardize ongoing undercover investigations, Mr. Walsh said. "Sophisticated operations can look at reports like that and figure out where you're spending money," he explained. "Releasing this could put people at risk and also give dealers an idea of the focus of our work." According to state law, police may seize money and other assets tied to drug-dealing, including vehicles and real estate. Once a case has been prosecuted, the city, town or state police agency that made the case and the local district attorney's office split the seized assets equally. The money can be used for long-range investigations or other law enforcement purposes deemed appropriate by the district attorney or attorney general. The district attorney may spend up to 10 percent of the money on drug treatment, education and programs such as neighborhood crime watches. District attorneys and the attorney general have to file reports with the Legislature on money spent for drug treatment, but they do not have to file public reports on overall drug forfeitures, according to the law. Mr. Cabral's bill calls for allocating 20 percent of forfeiture money for treatment, education and prevention efforts within the community. The remainder would be split between the police and district attorney's office. A nine-member committee in each district would advise the district attorney on how to spend the drug-treatment money. The committee would include providers, patient advocates and recovering addicts. The proposed legislation also would require district attorneys and the attorney general's office to file detailed annual reports with the Legislature on deposit and expenditure of all the drug forfeiture money. But Mr. Walsh argued that taking money away from police and prosecutors just when crime is dropping and prisons are filling up does not make sense. These are resources that have been effective in helping keep down crime, he said. Mr. Walsh said he supports spending money on treatment, but he argued the Legislature should allocate funds for such programs in the budget. What this is doing, he said of Mr. Cabral's bill, is pitting police and prosecutors against the people with whom they work closely -- rehabilitation and treatment people -- in a dispute over the funds. Mr. Cabral said he has been unable to obtain information on the amounts of money deposited in drug forfeiture accounts. Mr. Walsh also declined to release that information to The Standard-Times, although he hinted at the amount. "We are talking, let's say a couple of hundred thousand dollars of drug forfeiture money for a county this size," he said. "If there is such a crying need for this money, instead of taking it away from police and prosecutors, why not put it directly in the budget?" Arguing that his office likely already spends a great deal on treatment and community programs, he said the 20 percent requirement would take away his department's flexibility. The debate over how much money to spend on treatment versus enforcement reaches all the way to Washington, D.C. President Clinton's budget for the drug war calls for spending 34 percent on drug treatment and prevention, an amount substance abuse counselors have criticized as too low. Locally, drug treatment providers have called for more spending on reducing demand and treating addiction. Putting addicts in prison does not address the roots of their problem, said Carl Alves, executive director of the New Bedford Prevention Partnership. "There are constantly folks here who are frustrated about seeing criminals put into Faunce Corner (the county jail) and then released," he said. "If we just give them time without any treatment, then we are just warehousing, and people are coming out worse than they went in." The bill has faced little vocal opposition at public hearings in the past year, but each time has failed to win passage, mostly because of opposition from prosecutors and law enforcement representatives, Mr. Cabral said. "I have not heard a comprehensive reason for opposing this legislation, other than that they believe this is their money and they don't want to give up money for prevention and education and treatment," he said. "I'm willing to listen to proposals or language that could be added or changed. I'm willing to sit down with DAs and police chiefs or anybody else who would like to discuss the issue." A hearing on Mr. Cabral's bill has been scheduled for 1 p.m. on April 27, at the Statehouse in Hearing Room A2. - --- MAP posted-by: Mike Gogulski