From: NORML California <[canor m l] at [igc.apc.org]>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Date: 20 May 93 22:51 PDT
Subject: Cal. Forfeiture Reform Advances

Attorney General Lungren Backs Down on Asset Forfeiture,
Clearing Way for Reform Bill

     SACRAMENTO, MAY 18:   Forfeiture reform supporters won a 
victory at the California State Senate Judiciary Committee, as 
Attorney General Dan Lungren offered to amend a forfeiture bill 
sponsored by Sen. Ken Maddy, dropping provisions that would 
strengthen the current law and replacing them with provisions to 
provide better protection to defendants.
      In a major victory for NORML and FEAR (Forfeiture Endangers 
American Rights), Lungren reluctantly agreed to drop a proposal that 
would have for the first time extended state forfeiture law to 
homes and land used to cultivate 100 or more marijuana plants.  
Senators were clearly impressed by testimony about forfeiture-
related misconduct in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, 
especially the recent killing of Malibu millionaire Don Scott, 
murdered in his home by narcotics agents during an ill-founded 
marijuana raid apparently motivated by the hopes of forfeiting his 
multimillion-dollar estate.  
     Surprisingly, Lungren also agreed to withdraw language that 
would have established a presumption of forfeitability for assets 
found in the proximity of suspect material, and instead agreed to 
strengthen the presumption of innocence in current law by requiring 
"clear and convincing" evidence of criminal involvement, rather than 
a mere  "preponderance" of evidence as currently required.    Lungren 
also agreed to extend the filing deadline for owners seeking to 
contest seizure.
     Lungren's concessions were ostensibly aimed at staving off a 
stronger forfeiture reform bill, AB 114, sponsored by Assemblyman 
John Burton (D-San Francisco), which, in addition to imposing the 
"clear and convincing" evidence standard,  would require the 
government to pay attorney's fees and would change the way in 
which forfeiture revenues are apportioned, distributing them to a 
statewide fund rather than local law enforcement so as to 
discourage police "bounty-hunting."
     The committee postponed voting on the Lungren proposal, which 
was carried in a bill by  State Senator Ken Maddy (R-Fresno), SB 
1158.  However, Lungren's concessions appear to guarantee that 
whatever bill is finally adopted will be more protective of civil 
liberties than the current law. 
     California's current asset forfeiture law is scheduled to sunset 
at the end of 1993, so that failure to pass a new law will mean an 
end to state forfeiture revenues.  District attorneys and police from 
throughout the state turned out in force in support of the Maddy bill 
and against the Burton bill, saying that loss of forfeiture funds 
would mean cutbacks in police-sponsored drug education programs 
like DARE.  However, lawmakers appeared moved by an upswell of 
public resistance to forfeiture abuse, not only from civil liberties 
groups such as FEAR, NORML, the ACLU and National Association of 
Criminal Defense Lawyers, but also from restaurant and hotel, 
banking, and real estate business associations.
     Reformers were elated at their victory.  "The tide has turned," 
said California NORML coordinator Dale Gieringer, "For the first 
time, we are seeing bad anti-drug legislation rolled back."