cannabisnews.com: Oregon Makes It Tough for Police To Seize Property Oregon Makes It Tough for Police To Seize Property Posted by FoM on December 13, 2001 at 10:45:22 PT Sam Skolnik, Seattle Post-Intelligencer Reporter Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer Washington voters, take note. An Oregon citizens initiative -- similar to one Washingtonians are being asked to support -- has sharply restricted the rights of police to seize and keep the money, cars, homes and other property of suspected drug dealers.Measure 3, which passed in November 2000, mandated that a person has to be convicted of a crime before police can forfeit, or take title of their property. It also requires the government to show by "clear and convincing evidence" that the property was associated with a crime. In addition, the value of the seized property must be proportionate to the severity of the crime.The law, one of the toughest in the nation, caused immediate problems for police used to routinely seizing property -- and funneling most of the proceeds into drug-enforcement efforts.In March, the Multnomah County District Attorney's Office, which serves Portland, dissolved its forfeiture unit. Prosecutors cited the higher level of evidence required to prove a civil forfeiture, and the cost of storing and maintaining seized property until a criminal conviction.But a law enforcement coalition, including some proponents of Measure 3, recently pushed a bill through the state Legislature to reinstate a way for police to resume seizures and forfeitures.The law allows for one proceeding in which prosecutors seek both criminal conviction and forfeiture, if they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the property was tied to the crime. The law has fewer restrictions than Measure 3 regarding the types of property that can be forfeited, and on how the money is spent.Oregon's ACLU chapter supported the compromise legislation because only 40 percent of the money gleaned from seized cash and property goes to police. The rest goes to fund substance-abuse treatment, drug lab cleanup and an oversight committee charged with making sure forfeiture cases and funds are handled properly.ACLU Executive Director David Fidanque predicts that 90 percent of all police forfeitures in the state will now go through the criminal system instead of civil, with a much lesser burden of proof."That's quite a dramatic change," Fidanque said. "We're very pleased."Complete Title: Oregon Law Makes It Tough for Police To Seize PropertySource: Seattle Post-Intelligencer (WA)Author: Sam Skolnik, Seattle Post-Intelligencer Reporter Published: Thursday, December 13, 2001Copyright: 2001 Seattle Post-IntelligencerContact: editpage seattle-pi.comWebsite: http://www.seattle-pi.com/Related Articles & Web Site:ACLUhttp://www.aclu.org/Who Gave Your Rights Away?http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11438.shtmlLaw Enforcement Shares the Wealth in War on Drugs http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11064.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #4 posted by schmeff on December 14, 2001 at 09:33:40 PT Drug War Math I voted for Oregon's initiative to reform forfeiture law. In fact, about 75% of Oregonians did.Think of it: a 3/4 majority on a ballot initiative! This rarely happens, and I would posit, is a clear mandate.But a law enforcement coalition, including some proponents of Measure 3, recently pushed a bill through the state Legislature to reinstate a way for police to resume seizures and forfeitures.Is there any clearer example that politicians represent special interests, rather than their constituents?The law passed overwhemingly, yet Oregon's ACLU chapter supported the compromise legislation because only 40 percent of the money gleaned from seized cash and property goes to police. What was to compromise? Doesn't government receive its authority from the consent of the governed? (Seems like I heard this radical thought somewhere.) Yet a "law enforcement coalition" (yes, Virginia, cops are the Government)pushes a "compromise" through the Legislature and the ACLU applauds the move!? I agree, Sam Adams, the ACLU has dropped the ball here-although, in fairness, they have consistently denounced the WoD.If the Burglars with Badges only get to keep 40%, then mathematically, they will have to increase their seizures by 250% to keep on the gravy train. I expect that they will be up to the challenge. Have you noticed the price of a dozen doughnuts these days? [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by The GCW on December 13, 2001 at 13:16:36 PT Donut Gotta love the donut...how appropriate. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by CorvallisEric on December 13, 2001 at 11:37:06 PT Oregon We're still one of the cooler regions of hell. more Oregon forfeiture stuff [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on December 13, 2001 at 10:55:30 PT This guy is pleased? "The law allows for one proceeding in which prosecutors seek both criminal conviction and forfeiture, if they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the property was tied to the crime. The law has fewer restrictions than Measure 3 regarding the types of property that can be forfeited, and on how the money is spent.Oregon's ACLU chapter supported the compromise legislation because only 40 percent of the money gleaned from seized cash and property goes to police. The rest goes to fund substance-abuse treatment, drug lab cleanup and an oversight committee charged with making sure forfeiture cases and funds are handled properly.ACLU Executive Director David Fidanque predicts that 90 percent of all police forfeitures in the state will now go through the criminal system instead of civil, with a much lesser burden of proof."That's quite a dramatic change," Fidanque said. "We're very pleased."" --------------------- When is the ACLU going to wake up and get some backbone? IMHO they've totally fumbled the ball on the WOD. They should be leading the charge. How can this guy be pleased that the state govt/law enforcement machine has directly countermanded an order from the people of Oregon? Is that the ACLU's new job, to negotiate away democracy? [ Post Comment ] Post Comment