From: [p b ray] at [reed.edu]
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Civil forfeiture - fact or fancy?
Date: 24 Jun 93 02:41:22 GMT

From: Cristina Ungstad Yu <[c--u] at [delfin.com]>:

aclu news may-jun 1993
Springtime in Sacramento
Anti-Immigrant Bills and Forfeiture Laws

Asset Forfeiture

	As the deficit goes higher and funds
become more scarce, law enforcement
agencies are increasing their reliance on
drug forfeiture laws as a way to supple-
ment their budgets.  Existing statutes allow
law enforcement agencies to keep the
money they generate from forfeiture. In
the past four years, the agencies have
obtained more then $130 million dollars
from forfeited assets.  This notion of
enforcing criminal laws for profit has been
greatly abused, and can be deadly.
	In an incident last year in Malibu, mil-
ionaire-rancher Donald Scott was killed 
when state and federal law enforcement
officials stormed onto his 200-acre ranch
to search for marijuana. No marijuana was
found, and Scott lost his life at the hands
of law enforcement officers.  Recent news
reports indicate that the basis upon which
the search warrant was obtained was erro-
neous, and that law enforcement officials
apparently lied about the existence of mar-
ijuana in order to obtain the search warrant
- and the chance to seize his property.
Venture County Sheriff Michael Bradbury
wrote in his investigation of the incident,
"This search warrant became Donald
Scott's death warrant."  This unfortunate
incident as well as others have brought the
asset forfeiture laws under close scrutiny.
	The ACLU has, of course, strongly
opposed drug forfeiture laws.  Under these 
laws persons can lose their property even
if they are not charged with a crime, let
alone found innocent of any wrongdoing.
	Scheduled to expire this year,
California's asset forfeiture law is up for
renewal in the Legislature.  On one side is
SB 1158 (Maddy-R, Fresno), Attorney
Gemeral Dan Lungren's version, which
expands current law and patterns state for-
feiture after federal laws that require no
threshold amounts of any drugs - includ-
ing marijuana - in order to seize prop-
erty.
	On the other side is Assemblymember
John Burton's proposal, which could help 
prevent incidents like the Scott killing. AB
114 (Burton-D, San Francisco) requires 
no forfeiture proceedings until there has 
been  a criminal conviction for drug sales.
AB 114 also routes the money seized from
forfeiture proceedings into the general
fund so that the state - and not local law
enforcement agencies - could determine 
where the proceeds should be spent.
	The legislative fight will be over which
bill, and in what form, makes it to the 
Governor's desk.


Write to:

The Honorable Ken Maddy R-Fresno 		- he's introduced a bill
2503 W. Shaw Avenue, Suite 101			  that expands forfeiture
Fresno, CA 93711

Attorney General Dan Lungren
5151 K. Street #511				- he supports expansion
Sacremento, CA 95814				  of forfeiture
				
The Honorable Delaine Eastin			- she likes forfeiture if
39650 Liberty Street, Suite 160			  it doesn't infringe on 
Fremont, CA 94538   				  our rights too much
 
The Honorable John L. Burton			- he's introduced a
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 2202		  reform bill
San Francisco, CA 94102

Governor Pete Wilson				- I don't know his	
1st Floor, Capitol Bldg				  position, but he's
Sacremento, CA 95814				  a Republican
(415) 703-2218