Newsbrief:
Oregon
Appeals
Court
Overturns
Asset
Forfeiture
Reform
7/11/03
Oregon voters approved an asset forfeiture reform initiative in November 2000, but now a legal challenge from law enforcement has led the Oregon Court of Appeals to throw it out in a 2-1 split decision. In a Monday ruling, the court held that the initiative that led to the state's reformed current asset forfeiture law was unconstitutional because it changed too many provisions of the state constitution. Under Oregon's previous asset forfeiture law, passed in a wave of drug war passion in 1989, police needed only a "reasonable suspicion" that the goods seized were related to illegal drug activity. Under the new law, police cannot dispose of seized goods unless and until they obtain a conviction. As important, 75% of proceeds from seized goods now go to drug treatment programs, not the law enforcement agency that made the seizure. Law enforcement groups, who gained substantial financial benefits from the old law, opposed the initiative from the beginning and howled in pain at its passage, but the Lincoln Interagency Narcotics Team (LINT) didn't just whine -- it went to court. LINT lost its suit in Marion County Circuit Court, but appealed to the Court of Appeals, where the case was argued in January. In a narrow, some might even say crabbed, reading of Oregon statutes and case law, Judges Landau and Brewer ruled that although the initiative was directed at a single change -- "constitutional limitation on forfeiture of property" -- it actually made multiple changes in the state constitution, which is forbidden under state law. Judge Armstrong dissented, arguing that while "I agree with the majority that Measure 3 made several substantive changes to the constitution, I disagree with its conclusion that at least two of the changes had to be adopted separately because they were not related closely enough to be adopted in a single amendment. I conclude that they were closely related and, consequently, that they did not have to be voted on separately. I also conclude that the measure complied with the single-subject requirement in [the Oregon constitution]." No word yet on when or whether the state will appeal to the state Supreme Court.
|
