Lit_Match

Forfeitures of Property, Possessions On The Rise
02-18-08|Duluth News-Tribune|By Janna Goerdt

Once in a while, it's a windfall for law enforcement agencies. More often, it's a modest money-maker and public safety improvement. Sometimes, it's a sinkhole.

But one thing is certain when it comes to seizing vehicles from repeat drunken drivers and cash and firearms from drug dealers: Area law enforcement agencies are getting better at it.

When the Duluth Police Department began seizing vehicles from repeat DUI offenders in 1998 — the year the state Legislature authorized such seizures — it ended up with just a few cars a year, Officer Sharon Montgomery said. In 2006, the department seized 30 vehicles from DUI offenders.

Forfeiture is a tool being used more widely and consistently in recent years as the state has tightened up loopholes in the laws and departments have become better at understanding the system.

Federal and state laws allow law enforcement agencies to seize and either keep, destroy or sell certain properties from people convicted of drunken driving, drug offenses and other crimes. They are complicated sets of rules that take into account a person’s current and past offenses and aggravating factors. A typical DUI vehicle forfeiture, for example, would involve someone with a documented history of driving drunk.

Statewide, the reported gross value of seized property from drug and gang cases rose from $1.7 million in 2002 to $3.9 million in 2006. DUI forfeiture data is not tracked by the state.

Part of that increase may be due to better reporting of forfeited property. But part also is due to more departments handling more forfeiture cases for DUI and drug-related offenses, according to area law enforcement agencies.

“We used to take one or two [vehicles] a year,” said Detective Dennis Benz of the Virginia Police Department. “But about five years ago, we really started” administering a higher number of forfeitures.

Today, the Virginia Police Department handles about a dozen DUI vehicle forfeitures a year, and in 2006 it handled 10 drug forfeiture incidents ranging from less than $10 to nearly $700 in cash.

If the assets are sold, the pertinent agency is entitled to 70 percent of the net proceeds. The remainder is divided between the state and the prosecuting attorney’s office, generally the county attorney.

That makes forfeiture “a two-pronged approach” to fighting crime, said Lt. Dan Chicos of the Duluth Police Department. The immediate effect of most seizures is taking away someone’s opportunity to commit a crime, either by driving drunk or dealing drugs, said Chicos, also the commander of the Lake Superior Drug Task Force.

The second prong allows departments to use the proceeds to buy equipment and extra training for officers. The Cloquet Police Department, for instance, recently purchased several in-squad cameras and preliminary breathalyzer tests with its forfeiture proceedings, and the Duluth Police Department remodeled its DUI intake room with its proceedings.

“The money doesn’t go into the police officers’ pockets; it goes into the public’s pockets,” said Terry Hill, deputy chief of the Cloquet Police Department.

But many law enforcement agencies seem to be aware of the perception that they are selective with seizures, particularly when it comes to vehicles — that the good stuff is seized and the junkers drive away.

Many departments said they try to combat that idea by seizing every vehicle that falls within the guidelines, whether it‘s worth “$500 or $50,000,” Hill said. Officials with the Duluth, Hermantown, Proctor, and Cloquet Police Departments all said they don’t discriminate when it comes to vehicle seizures.

But what may look like an asset to a department can actually be a drain on staff time and resources.

“This is a very long and complicated process,” Hermantown Police Chief Mike Anderson said. It can take months and even years for a case to work its way through the court system, and until there’s a conviction, the vehicle sits. The Hermantown Police Department has kept vehicles for more than four years; the Cloquet Police Department has a few that have lingered for three years. There have been break-ins and vandalism to cars at the Duluth police impound lots, Chicos said.

And during that time, departments are paying impound fees and officers are pumping up flat tires and jump-starting idled vehicles.

“Are we here to do this for the business?” asked Benz. “We are not. We’re here to deter the person from [drunken] driving. … We don’t like it, but we have to do it.”

Not all law enforcement agencies aggressively apply the forfeiture laws.

The Superior Police Department didn’t seize any vehicles last year for drunken driving, and the department is more selective than others when deciding whether to seize assets from drug busts.

Part of the reason, Capt. Matt Markon said, is that Wisconsin’s forfeiture laws are more complicated and allow more chances for people to contest the proceedings.

“Some of these vehicles aren’t in the best shape to begin with,” Markon said. “Some of them are junkers; it doesn’t serve any purpose for us to take some of those vehicles.”

The department seized two Corvettes from drug dealers about 10 years ago, Markon said. One vehicle was sold, the other is still in use as a parade vehicle advertising the department’s DARE program. As for the perception that agencies only want valuable items, Markon said, “There may be some validity to it.”

“But at the same time,” he said, “we have to look at how much we can do with the resources we have available.”

Forfeitures are extremely inconsistent from year to year, meaning departments can’t count on the proceedings for income. For instance, the Eveleth Police Department netted $23,288 in drug forfeitures in 2005, and $2,529 in 2006.

But when agencies make a big bust, it can mean a big windfall.

The Two Harbors Police Department worked with Lake County Sheriff’s Office in 2006 on a large marijuana bust in Larsmont. After a hunter reported finding a “pot orchard,” the two agencies discovered a father and son entwined in a marijuana-growing operation. Under the forfeiture laws, the agencies were able to seize his home, valued at about $400,000, Two Harbors Assistant Police Chief Kevin Ruberg said.

The property owner contested the seizure, and the matter ended up being settled out of court, with Swanson agreeing to a $75,000 direct payment to the law enforcement agencies. The Two Harbors Police Department saw $26,000 of that, bringing their total drug forfeiture proceeds for the past several years to about $27,000. Ruberg said the department would like to purchase in-squad cameras with some of that money.

“Forfeitures aren’t a big revenue builder for us,” Ruberg said. “For some departments, they can be.”

__________________
Donation links to NORML (The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) | MPP (Marijuana Policy Project)