-Caveat Lector- ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:15:40 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: A H Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: FEAR: US IA: Seize First, Convict Later Send reply to: A H Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: Forfeiture Endangers American Rights http://www.fear.org/ FEAR also offers an unmoderated discussion list and digests for all lists List update: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=FEAR-list- update List unsubscribe: mailto:fear-list- [EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe [Forwarded from the MAP DrugNews Service www.mapinc.org ] Pubdate: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 Source: Quad-City Times (IA) Section: Front Page above the fold, Pg A1 Website: http://www.qctimes.com/ Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright: 2001 Quad-City Times Fax: (319) 383-2370 Author: Marc Chase Note: Quad-City Times reporter Tom Saul contributed to this article Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture) SEIZE FIRST, CONVICT LATER Months or years before some suspected Scott County drug dealers get their day in criminal court, their seized property and cash already belong to law enforcement agencies. One in four Scott County residents who had property and money seized by local police never faced any criminal charges, a Quad-City Times investigation of court records shows. That one in four includes those who are outright innocent, those for whom police cannot prove criminal charges and those who don't have enough money to fight the system. During a four-year period, Scott County police agencies seized and kept $135,099.60 in cash and thousands of dollars worth of property in 103 cases that never found their way into criminal court. Scott County prosecutors defend the numbers, arguing that the system allows them to take away the profit motive of drug dealing and other criminal enterprises even in cases that would be difficult or impossible to prosecute. Quad-City police say civil forfeiture laws allow them to take profits away from small-time dealers while offering those dealers leniency in criminal court in exchange for cooperation in bigger drug cases. But critics of such laws say the system punishes people by taking their money and property whether or not they have been charged with a crime. Oregon voters decided last year that prosecutors must win criminal convictions before property and cash can be forfeited to police. Advocates of reform also argue that allowing law enforcement agencies to keep seized money and property encourages arrests based on money, not public safety. The Cases A five-month Times investigation of 412 forfeiture cases handled in Scott County between Jan. 1, 1996, and November 2000, showed that about 25 percent, or 103 cases, involved no criminal charges. Money seized and kept in those cases made up nearly 18 percent of the $763,221.74 that was seized in Scott County and then distributed to area police departments, the Iowa Department of Justice and the Scott County Attorney's office during that time period. Police also returned $91,444.21 in 62 cases for which forfeiture claims could not be proven. In some cases, like that of former Davenport man Ronald Kuhl, those who did face criminal action were not charged until months or years after their cash and property were surrendered to police. Under Iowa law, police can seize money and property suspected of being used in, or resulting from, criminal acts. Those assets, often used as evidence, then can be kept for crime-fighting purposes if law enforcement agencies win forfeiture judgments in civil court. A criminal conviction is not required before money and property can be forfeited. On May 27, 1998, Quad-City Metropolitan Enforcement Group, or MEG, agents seized 28 grams of methamphetamine, plastic packaging, two safes and $11,498 from Kuhl's Davenport apartment while serving a search warrant. In August of that year, Scott County District Judge David Sivright ordered the money forfeited. But Kuhl was not criminally charged until Feb. 14, 2001 � 21/2 years after the cash and property were turned over to police � when a federal grand jury in Davenport indicted him on meth delivery charges. Critics of civil forfeiture laws say cases like Kuhl's � and of others who never face criminal charges � show a flaw in the system. "You can be acquitted, never charged or never have your day in court, and that doesn't change things under the forfeiture statute," said Randall Wilson, legal director of the Iowa Civil Liberties Union. "Property is considered forfeited until you go into a court with an attorney and prove otherwise." Invisible Wall Scott County Attorney Bill Davis said he would like to see criminal convictions every time property or money is seized. "But they are separate issues," he said. "To seek and win a criminal conviction, we have to be able to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt. "We may have a weak criminal case based on that standard," Davis added. "Our standard of proof in the civil forfeiture cases is a lower hurdle � preponderance of the evidence � and we may be able to argue that but not the other." Davis said he keeps an invisible wall between his prosecutors who handle criminal cases and Assistant Scott County Attorney Ted Priester, who handles civil forfeiture cases. The barrier ensures that assets can't be used as bargaining tools for suspects to "buy their way out of criminal cases," he said. "I rarely have anything to do with prosecutors on the cases," Priester said. "I don't know if the people in my cases are charged with a crime or what happened with the criminal charges. I'm concerned with the property and the evidence that shows whether it may have been used in the commission of the crime." Assistant Attorney General Doug Marek, who specializes in Iowa forfeiture laws, said his office recommends the invisible-wall approach used by Davis to avoid the use of seized money as a plea-bargaining chip. He also said property owners have the ability to contest forfeitures in open court. "Forfeiture is not based on criminal convictions," Marek said. "But you still have to have the evidence that the money or property was used in the furtherance of criminal activity. And if that case is weak, people have the opportunity to point that out in court." Informants While Davis' office keeps a barrier between civil forfeiture and criminal cases, some police and defense attorneys say the division is not so clear on the street. Davenport police Lt. Scott Sievert, who heads his department's gang and vice units, said some people who lose property through forfeiture cases do not face criminal charges because they agree to cooperate with police in other cases. Davenport defense attorney, David Treimer, who specializes in drug cases, agreed. "I've seen that before � where someone doesn't contest their forfeiture and agrees to turn state's evidence," he said. "To avoid prosecution, they become snitches and work the street for police." In some cases, civil forfeiture laws can allow police to take away the dealers' profits while allowing police and prosecutors latitude to cut deals with them in the criminal arena, said Davenport Police Chief Mike Bladel. In one case, MEG agents seized $700 cash and two handguns along with about $1,500 worth of meth and about $100 worth of marijuana from a Davenport man in August 1998. The man did not contest the seizure and avoided criminal charges by becoming an informant for the agency. Sievert said that same man now helps build Davenport police drug cases as well. "One of the heaviest criticisms of law enforcement is that we pick on the small-time dealers," Bladel said. "But I think this shows us getting them to assist in the prosecution of cases at a higher level." Reform Regardless of whether they agree to cooperate with police, suspects should not have to relinquish property unless prosecutors prove they committed crimes, advocates of reform say. Voters in Oregon showed they agreed with that philosophy in November 2000, backing a measure to amend their state constitution to require criminal convictions before forfeiture cases can go forward. Prior to the amendment, Oregon law allowed police agencies to keep seized cash and property if they could prove they had "probable cause" to believe it was used in, or obtained from, criminal acts. Phil Lemman, director of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, said the amendment also restricts law enforcement agencies from obtaining more than 25 percent of forfeited cash. That money only can be used for the legal costs of pursuing the forfeitures, he said. The rest of the money is earmarked for drug treatment and education programs, he said. Similar reforms have been approved in Utah. Under Iowa law, police agencies and prosecutors are allowed to use all of the seized money for law enforcement programs, including training and national seminars, as long as the programs are not a regular part of the agencies' annual budgets. "The thinking by supporters of (Oregon) reform was that the past system encouraged a 'bounty-hunting' philosophy in law enforcement where police were going after cases based on the cash or assets they involved," Lemman said. "The thinking was that police were pursuing cases based on monetary value rather than public-safety value." Sievert, whose vice and gang units often cooperate with MEG on drug cases, denied that county law enforcement agencies seek a profit from forfeiture cases. "Big seizures are nice, and we're happy when we get them," Sievert said. "But that's not what we're looking for." Overall, Scott County and state law enforcement agencies were awarded $763,221.74 in seized cash between Jan. 1, 1996, and November 2000, court records show. Almost 70 percent of that money, or $528,196.39, was awarded to the Davenport Police Department or to MEG. Davenport's department handled 196 seizure cases during that time period for which it was awarded $140,472.47. MEG handled 184 cases, bringing in $387,723.92. Bladel said those totals don't reflect the number of cases in which police make drug arrests but seize no property or cash. According to city records, Davenport police handled 4,184 drug cases between 1996 and 2000, meaning they seized money and property in about 5 percent of the cases. Bladel defended the way area law enforcement agencies use seized money, arguing the community benefits from the extra training for officers and crime-fighting equipment the money buys. But a political organizer who helped lead forfeiture reform in Oregon said the system provides police departments with a tool to pad their budgets at the expense of people never convicted of crimes. A review of court records by the Oregonians for Property Protection, an organization that led the charge for reform there, showed that more than 70 percent of all people in Oregon who lost property and cash in forfeiture cases never faced criminal charges, said Geoff Sugerman, a spokesman for the group. The State of Oregon could provide no official figures as it does not track forfeiture cases versus criminal charges, Lemman said. Neither does the State of Iowa. "The way asset forfeiture is done in many places throughout the country is unfair," Sugerman said. "It was time to raise the bar in Oregon, and it needs to be lifted elsewhere." Ashley H Clements 1416 Brookvalley Lane Atlanta GA 30324 404 636 6426 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mapinc.org www.drugsense.org www.november.org www.fear.org *************************************************************************** * ************ List unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe *************************************************************************** * ************ ------- End of forwarded message ------- -- Best wishes Big Business and State Socialism are very much alike, especially Big Business. - G. K. Chesterton, G.K.'s Weekly, 4/10/26 <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
