Legislature to take hard look at forfeiture rules

In the aftermath of the Metro Gang Strike Force scandal, the Legislature is swirling with proposals to dramatically change the rules governing forfeiture -- the process by which the government takes possession of property and cash seized by police.

Some of the proposals are being written with an eye toward curbing what some see as a "treasure hunt mentality" that they say the law has fostered within too many law enforcement agencies.

Meanwhile, another draft bill would immediately shut down the Strike Force advisory board, which has continued to meet and incur significant legal expenses, five months after the force was disbanded.

The debate by lawmakers over forfeitures is likely to center on whether the misconduct of Strike Force officers was an aberration or indicative of systemic problems allowed by a flawed law.

The proposals, if they advance to become bills, also would likely spark debate over how cities and counties will continue to fund law enforcement agencies, since forfeited funds can be an important source of revenue.

One proposal would allow cash and property to be seized for evidence but not to be forfeited unless prosecutors get a criminal conviction.

With majorities in the state House and Senate, DFLers have the political muscle to pass significant changes, assuming they can coalesce. But they're also aware of the need to pass measures that will not be vetoed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Early signs are that some proposals could get at least some GOP support.

Brian McClung, Pawlenty's deputy chief of staff, said the governor supports state Department of Public Safety Commissioner Michael Campion's proposal to increase oversight and accountability over drug and gang task forces. In an e-mail to the Star Tribune, McClung added, "We are willing to consider other proposals that may be drafted by legislators, but we would need to see bill language before weighing in on those ideas."

Attorney Tom Plunkett is drafting ideas for a bill proposed by the Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, which wants changes to the current forfeiture statute.

Now, he said, when police seize someone's property, the owner must draft a legal complaint and do legal discovery to get it back -- regardless of whether the property owner is charged with a crime. He says forfeitures should be initiated only by prosecutors when they decide to file charges.

"Tons of people have their stuff taken and never face criminal charges, and in a lot of these cases a crime is never committed," said Plunkett.

Backers of the criminal-charge requirement include the Minnesota chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Minnesota chapter of the Institute for Justice, a libertarian group.

Plunkett also advocates requiring forfeiture proceeds to be shared more equitably among government entities, to remove what critics see as an insidious incentive. Under the current law, 70 percent of proceeds go to the seizing agency, 20 percent to the prosecuting agency and 10 percent to the state treasury.

"Currently, [most of] the property goes to the agency that takes it," he said. "This has created a treasure hunt mentality." He said proceeds should be spread more evenly among law enforcement, prosecutors, specialty courts and treatment programs.

A proposal from Campion, expected to be introduced in the Legislature, would set aside some seized funds for updating technology for cameras, initially purchased with a federal grant, that would be installed in police and sheriffs' squad cars statewide.

Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder, said if the Legislature revises the forfeiture law, he'll "be pounding on the [governor's] desk, asking him to veto it, unless it has the input and support of law enforcement and the prosecutors." He said current proposals are "grandstanding" by legislators. What's needed, he said, are prosecutions of the Strike Force wrongdoers, not new bills.

Rep. Paul Kohls, R-Victoria, the lead Republican on the House Public Safety Finance Committee, said he favors tightening the law to "make sure that individuals' property rights are being protected. ... Where the property is seized and then forfeited, and there is no conviction and in some cases not even an arrest, that's a concern."

He also said "law enforcement should be funded by the Legislature through traditional funding sources. We shouldn't be asking it to finance itself."

Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen, R-Alexandria, lead Republican on the Senate Public Safety and Finance Committee, said: "I don't think cash should be taken unless there is a [criminal] charge. If there is no conviction on any kind of evidence, it should be returned ..." He said seized funds should be used to offset law enforcement costs, although "jobs should not depend on that funding source."

John Kingrey, executive director of the Minnesota County Attorneys Association, said there's no need to change the forfeiture statute. He said forfeitures, for the most part, occur after convictions.

Dennis Flaherty, executive director of the Minnesota Police and Police Officers Association, said that aside from what happened with the Strike Force, he's unaware of problems under the current law. "We would oppose any attempts to eliminate administrative forfeiture," he said.

A draft bill by Rep. Michael Paymar, DFL-St. Paul, chairman of the House Public Safety Finance Division, would give Campion more authority over multi-jurisdictional agencies, require outside audits and immediately abolish the Strike Force's advisory board.

The board still meets and since the Strike Force shutdown has made various decisions, from closing the Force headquarters, to storing large amounts of evidence, to dealing with lawsuits against the Force.

"These people [the advisory board] were in charge for years while these Strike Force members were allegedly stealing money and shaking down people," said Paymar. "Why should they continue to exist? Why aren't they held to account for their failures?"

Paymar would transfer all duties of the board to Campion but keep "outstanding obligations and liabilities" the responsibility of the Strike Force and the agencies that created it.

Manila (Bud) Shaver, chairman of the advisory board, said he would not comment until he had read the draft bill.

Randy Furst • 612-673-7382