Battle is brewing over property-seizure proposal

A contentious battle over funding crime-fighting through the seizure of property is brewing on Capitol Hill after the debut of SB175 Wednesday.

The bill would rewrite Utah's Uniform Forfeiture Procedures Act (UFPA) and again allow police departments to collect forfeiture funds through state and federal prosecutions.

UFPA, which was passed into law as Initiative B during the 2000 election, has cost the state millions in federal crime-fighting funds, Buttars said. Some 70 percent of voters supported UFPA.

"My bill goes right the heart of preserving Initiative B and even strengthens it," Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, said, adding that out-of-state money funded that effort. "They added some language that protected property owners, but the unintended consequence was the elimination of our efforts at drug interdiction."

In Daniel Newby's opinion, however, SB175 is the exact opposite of what Utah citizens wanted in 2000. Newby is one of the original backers of the UFPA and a founder of the citizen group Accountability Utah, which has fought to preserve the law.

"It will effectively nullify and destroy Initiative B," said Newby. "It also restores perverse incentives for law enforcement to confiscate the property of innocent property owners to increase their budgets."

The bill is set for a two-hour debate before the Senate Judiciary Committee today.

Asset forfeiture is a civil procedure through which law enforcement can seize and sell the property of convicted criminals who have acquired the possessions through illegal activity. The process is used most frequently in drug crimes.

Critics say the process encourages unlawful seizures and puts innocent property owners at risk, while police departments pad their budget with profits from forfeiture sales.

Before UFPA, forfeiture proceeds went back to police departments to fund equipment, training and other costs. Since the measure, that money was redirected through the state treasurer's office for deposit in the Uniform School Fund.

Very little money has actually come to the state, however, because law enforcement either halted it or partnered with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration for federal investigation and prosecution.