Police again may get to seize assets

Utah's law enforcement agencies will again be allowed to seize and sell the ill-gotten gains of criminals under a bill moving through the Utah Senate.

SB175 reworks the state law that curbed the practice of asset forfeiture by police. The bill received preliminary approval in Senate on a 20-7 vote Wednesday, after a handful of minor amendments.

Should SB175 become law, it would substantially change a state ballot initiative that made it illegal for law enforcement to keep forfeiture funds. The initiative passed with 69 percent of the vote in 2000.

The bill would increase protections for innocent property owners and lien holders and fix the "unintended consequence" of cutting police off from state and federal money to help them fight the war on drugs, sponsoring Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, said.

"We have gotten to the point where we have said to drug distributors that crime pays," said Buttars, who enlisted some 20 co-sponsors.

Forfeiture of cash and property tied to a crime occur primarily in drug cases and can be done either through state courts, or in partnership with federal agencies. Federal revenue sharing brings 80 percent of forfeiture proceeds back to Utah police.

Under Initiative B, state monies have been turned over to the Uniform School Fund, and federal funds have been piling up in Washington, D.C. Some say Utah has lost as much as $5 million since the initiative became law in 2001.

SB175 would bring that money back, but funnel it into a state restricted account, from which police can apply for grants. Under SB175, forfeiture money can be used for training or equipment, but not for officer salaries, overtime pay or retirement funds.

In an effort to preserve the intent of Initiative B, Sen. Dave Thomas, R-South Weber, proposed an amendment to require state and federal agencies to agree to use state forfeiture procedures when their investigations result in the seizing of property.

Federal law offers too few protections for property owners, Thomas said.

Senators voted down the proposal, saying that that federal cops and the U.S. Attorney's office weren't likely to enter into such agreements. Some also said the proposal would violate federal supremacy law.