Follow
That
Story:
Oregon
Asset
Forfeitures
on
Hold
for
Now,
Cops,
Prosecutors
Worried
About
New
Law's
Impact
12/15/00
Fallout continues from Oregon voters' overwhelming decision at the polls to reform that state's asset forfeiture laws. Last week, DRCNet reported on the loud wailing and gnashing of teeth in law enforcement and prosecutorial circles as they faced the prospect of losing the self-perpetuating funding opportunity that was asset forfeiture (http://www.drcnet.org/wol/163.html#forfeitureinits). Now, the threat of new, restrictive standards is beginning to bite. Oregon police agencies, including the Oregon State Police, the Portland Police Bureau, and some of the state's 25 drug task forces,b have decided to restrict asset forfeiture cases. The State Police ordered a temporary halt to asset forfeiture cases where the goods in question are valued at less than $10,000 and said it will not seize any vehicles related to drug crimes. "This is just an interim action," State Police Lt. John Salle told the Oregonian (Portland) on Sunday. Salle, who heads the state police's 36-member drug enforcement branch, said police were awaiting clarification in the state legislature. "We didn't want to continue to do business as usual because the complexion of the law has changed," he added. Also last week, the Multnomah County (Portland) District Attorney's office advised county law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to suspend property seizures until the legislature acts to bring existing law into compliance with the changes mandated by Measure 3. Multnomah County DA Michael Shrunk, in a memo circulated to all county law enforcement agencies, said it would not be prudent to pursue with new cases given the current uncertainty. Shrunk also worried that prosecutors or police could be hit with fines three times the amount of the property seized if the case violated the new standards. "We have moved on the side of caution," Shrunk told the Oregonian. "The risk is relatively high because of the lack of procedures. If we get an adverse ruling, a government agency may be subject to damages." Responding to Shrunk's missive, the Portland police and the Regional Organized Crime Narcotics (ROCN) task force announced they will temporarily suspend seizures of cash or property, unless it is held as criminal evidence. Portland police also announced they would quit seizing the cars of persons soliciting prostitutes and repeat drunk drivers, both of which had been allowed under local ordinances. They complained that because they would no longer gain forfeiture revenues, they could no longer afford to pay storage fees for vehicles awaiting their owners' convictions. Since the vote, Multnomah County prosecutors have dismissed some 15 forfeiture cases stemming from low-level drug dealing or possession busts in which they expect to gain no convictions. But county prosecutors have also handed five larger forfeiture cases over to the local US Attorney's office for federal forfeiture proceedings, and Assistant US Attorney Leslie Westphal, who handles asset forfeiture cases, told the Oregonian her office would prosecute more such cases in an effort to dam the breach caused by the voters. "In the past, we have not gone after smaller cases," she said. "But now that local agencies don't have that authority, we're going to have to take many of these." Typically, under federal forfeiture law, the federal government returns as much as 80% of the value of the seized goods to the arresting state or local agency. But whether this practice can continue in Oregon is now up for debate. Measure 3 mandates that such funds be instead used for drug treatment or education. According to Dave Fratello of the Campaign for New Drug Policies, which managed the Oregon campaign, "there is a real potential conflict here." "No one has talked much about this," he told DRCNet, "and it will be interesting to watch how it plays out."
|
