TEMPERING SEIZURES

A little-noted but important bill reforming the asset-forfeiture and
property seizure system passed the California Legislature during the
end-of-session flurry a couple of weeks ago and awaits a signature from
Gov. Gray Davis. S.B. 1866, sponsored by San Jose Democratic Sen. John
Vasconcellos, is an important step in the direction of equity and justice
and Gov. Davis should sign it.

In recent years overuse of the asset-forfeiture or seizure laws in drug
cases has been an increasingly contentious issue. Under federal laws,
police can seize property and cash from suspected drug dealers, even
without charges being filed, and the burden of proof is on the person whose
property is seized to prove that it wasn't acquired through illicit activities.

In many states, seized money does not go to directly to the police agency
that seized it but to the general fund or to drug education programs. In
California, under reforms enacted in 1992, a conviction is required and the
seizing agency is allowed to keep up to 50 percent of the proceeds.

The consequence, in California and elsewhere, is that many police agencies
seize property under federal laws which make it easier for police agencies
to get and keep the proceeds of asset forfeiture - returning up to 80
percent of the proceeds to the seizing agency. In such cases, state
government gets none of the proceeds but the seizing agency gets more than
it would under California law.

The problem, as Superior Court Judge James P. Gray has told us, is that
this system sets up the potential for conflicts or the appearance of
conflicts of interest for police agencies. The temptation is to bolster
police budgets through seizures rather than through normal legislative
procedures.

S.B. 1866, which passed with a narrow bipartisan majority, would require a
judge rather than the law enforcement agency to decide when drug money
should be turned over to a federal agency, tighten up the definition of
when property has actually been "seized" and require police officers to
follow state law when seizing property even if deputized by a federal
agency. Orange County Sens. Dunn and Lewis voted for it, as did Assemblyman
Ackerman. Scott Baugh voted against it (though his staff says it was a
mistake), as did Marilyn Brewer and Pat Bates. The original bill had
included criminal penalties for police officers who violated the new
procedures, but that provision was eliminated after protests from law
enforcement lobbyists, according to Rand Martin, Sen. Vasconcellos' chief
of staff.

Even though this bill hasn't been signed yet, its passage has already
emboldened legislators in other states, including Utah, Kansas and Missouri
to seek similar reforms in their own states. It is difficult to see valid
objections (beyond a naked desire to maximize police budgets) to the reform
as passed. Gov. Davis might face pressure from law enforcement lobbyists to
veto the bill, but he should sign it.