-Caveat Lector- from - http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,53%7E471334,00.html
Bill to target forfeiture law Bipartisan Colo. measure a response to complaints about police actions By Julia C. Martinez Denver Post Capitol Bureau Tuesday, March 19, 2002 - Cash, cars, boats, firearms - even a hot tub - are being confiscated from citizens before they're ever charged with a crime. And few people know where the money or property is going because most law enforcement agencies aren't reporting it. Police have used the cash to pay for everything from pizzas to Christmas parties and use the cars for undercover work. Two lawyer-lawmakers are forging an unlikely alliance to limit the power of law enforcement to snatch property thought to be connected to illegal activity before criminal charges have been filed. Democratic Sen. Bill Thiebaut and Republican Rep. Shawn Mitchell are introducing legislation this week after years of complaints of police abuse in Colorado and two years after Congress passed a law limiting the federal government's forfeiture power. The federal law set in motion a national movement to revamp state laws, and Colorado has joined a handful of states at the forefront. "It's inappropriate for law enforcement to seize and liquidate people's property before they are convicted of a crime ," said Thiebaut, the Senate majority leader from Pueblo. "If you're an innocent person, you shouldn't have your property taken away, and if it is taken away, you should have due process, even if you're guilty." Current law makes it "much easier for the government to seize property than to convict you of a crime," said Mitchell, a Broomfield lawmaker. "I have the firm belief it's a dangerous power subject to abuse, and it needs to be restrained." Thiebaut and Mitchell also want to restrict how the property or proceeds are used because often the property is never returned to the owner, even if the person is acquitted. Some police have used the seized cars, cellphones, jewelry and guns in undercover work or sold the property and used the proceeds for pizzas, parties and, in the case of one police department, an aquarium. A confiscated hot tub allegedly ended up in the home of a sheriff, according to one lawmaker. But state regulators have no idea where most of the property or proceeds are going because the majority of police and sheriff's departments are ignoring a 1992 requirement to file an annual report with the state's Department of Local Affairs. A review of every filing since 1992 found that only six law enforcement agencies are in compliance, said Christie Donner of the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition. That's out of potentially 100 or more agencies that might have received forfeited property or proceeds. Some sheriff's departments haven't filed a report in a decade. Yet the value of the property seized over the years in Colorado, Donner said, is probably "in the millions easily," leaving many agencies with large, unregulated slush funds. Civil forfeiture began as a tool for law enforcement to fight the war on drugs. Seizing planes, boats, cars, houses and other assets acquired with drug money was a means to cripple the drug trade. But the scope of forfeiture mushroomed. And now, under Colorado's public-nuisance law, any property used for, or proceeds from, any felony can be confiscated. The bill to be introduced proposes drastic changes in Colorado law, specifying that the property and proceeds from civil forfeitures go to treatment programs, among other places, and to innocent co-owners, such as family members. In recent years, New Mexico, Utah, Oregon, Nevada and Missouri have revamped their statutes to shift the burden of proof to the government and raise the legal standard before a conviction. In Utah and Oregon, voters passed constitutional amendments, and people on the leading edge of Colorado's movement, including former state Rep. Jerry Kopel, say they will put the measure before voters if the legislature doesn't act. The laws targeted for reform are Colorado's nuisance and contraband forfeiture laws, which allow prosecutors to seize property at any time, before or after an arrest or charge, and keep it for "law enforcement purposes." The property owner is not automatically entitled to recover the property even if ultimately acquitted because the confiscation occurs under a civil procedure separate from the criminal case. The civil action can be too costly to undo for most people. Sometimes the property has been auctioned by the time the criminal case is over. The proposed legislation would shift the burden of proof to the government and raise the legal standard for seizures before a conviction. It would require that, in most cases, a property owner be convicted of a crime prior to forfeiture. Police and sheriffs historically have opposed changes to the law, arguing that it's an important weapon in fighting crime. A 2000 report on Denver seizures shows that a 1990 Lincoln limousine, a 2000 Firebird and numerous other seized cars, cellphones, jewelry, rare coins and firearms, specifically, a .22-caliber rifle, a .50-caliber rifle and a Winchester rifle, were listed "for use in undercover operations & training." Denver police Sgt. Tony Lombard declined to comment. Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter, whose office, along with the police and city budget officials, decide how to deal with the seized goods, said that the policy of his office is to destroy confiscated firearms and that the guns should have been thrown out. Ritter said he would check into it. Ritter also declined to comment on the proposed legislation until he sees the bill. "We understand this is an important area for there to be public discussion about," Ritter said. "As elected DAs, we take seriously our responsibility to scrutinize our forfeiture actions and make the process a fair process." Kopel cited a 1990 case in which a southern Colorado sheriff tried to take a house where a man had been charged with committing incest with his daughter. "Not only had the girl been violated, but the sheriff was going to make her homeless," Kopel said. Citizens were so outraged, they got together and paid the sheriff the amount he wanted in lieu of the house, Kopel said. "Colorado's forfeiture law has been used in a very, very egregious fashion," said defense attorney Gary Lozow. "It's a format for money for the state." Lozow said that while the purpose of the law is to stop crime by taking away the "vehicle" for committing the crime, often "it's egregiously overreaching" allowing law enforcement to take away entire businesses. <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
