| Asset Forfeiture |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 2000 Annual Report of the Asset
Forfeiture Oversight Advisory Committee
Research Analyst, Oregon Criminal Justice Commission.
Please see the Contact Information page for address and phone numbers.
Please note that information on this page is current as of the date of publication of this report, 31 March 2001. It has not and will not be updated to reflect changes in practice, law, or policy. Please refer to the Asset Forfeiture Home Page for current information.
Presented to:
Senate President Gene Derfler
Speaker of the House Mark Simmons
Governor John A. Kitzhaber, MD
Attorney General Hardy Myers
March 31, 2001
For further information, contact Meredith Bliss,
Research Analyst, Oregon Criminal Justice Commission.
Please see the Contact Information page for address and phone numbers.
HISTORY
The 1989 Oregon legislature enacted a comprehensive civil forfeiture statute to capture revenue from narcotics transactions which otherwise escape taxation, and to allow the use of that revenue to improve government response to drug-related prohibited conduct. This law provides for forfeiture of properties used in or related to drug crimes in a civil action. 1989 Oregon Laws, Chapter 791, later codified as ORS Chapter 475A, further describes how seized assets will be handled. It establishes conditions for disbursal of funds received through forfeiture, and provides for the return of assets to claimants if those assets are found not to have been used for or derived from unlawful drug activity.
The Asset Forfeiture Oversight Advisory Committee (AFOAC) was created to aid the legislature in determining the effect of the law and the manner in which it was being applied. The Committee prepares "reports detailing the number and nature of forfeitures carried out" under this law. In order to gather information to be used in preparing these reports to the legislature, the committee met regularly from October 1991 to April 1994. Report forms to be completed by forfeiture counsel were developed. These forms were used to gather information regarding seizure data and the distribution of forfeited assets as they related to specific cases. Completed forms were sent to the Legislative Counsel´s office where they were entered into a database, as time allowed. As a result of limited staffing, data were not entered after 1995.
In 1997, the legislature repealed the sunset provision of the forfeiture law, provided staff for the AFOAC and directed the AFOAC to review the reporting process. Funding for AFOAC staff was provided from state and local forfeiture proceeds. These funds allowed the creation of one 0.5 FTE position within the Criminal Justice Commission to serve as committee staff.
Ballot Measure 3
Adoption of Ballot Measure 3 by Oregon voters in November 2000 necessitated major changes in the way civil asset forfeiture is applied in this state. Measure 3, an amendment to the Oregon Constitution, prohibits the forfeiture of assets unless the owner is first convicted of the crime with which the assets are alleged to have been involved. Criminal forfeiture has long been available as a sanction imposed as part of a sentence following conviction of certain crimes. Civil forfeiture, despite the adoption of Ballot Measure 3, continues as a separate civil proceeding, but now is dependent upon the conviction of the owner of the property.
Ballot Measure 3, now Article XV, Section 10, of the Oregon Constitution, also prohibits the use of forfeited assets for law enforcement purposes. It also extends the reporting requirement to all civil forfeitures, not just those associated with narcotic law violations. While some jurisdictions are continuing to pursue civil asset forfeiture under the provisions of Ballot Measure 3, which went into effect on December 7, 2000, the committee received no reports of forfeitures under those requirements before December 31, 2000. Several jurisdictions, however, decided to decline forfeiture actions on cases that could not be brought to judgment before the effective date for Ballot Measure 3.
The 2001 Legislature is considering revisions to ORS Chapter 475A that will bring the forfeiture statutes into compliance with Measure 3.
Back to Top
COMMITTEE PROCESS
Representative Rob Patridge currently chairs the Asset Forfeiture Oversight Advisory Committee. Senator Avel Gordly serves as vice-chair. The committee is made up of 12 members, three each appointed by the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, the Governor and the Attorney General.
The committee held meetings in conjunction with meetings of the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and the Oregon District Attorneys Association in June and July of 2000. The purpose of the meetings was to provide a forum for the discussion of issues arising from the initiative petition which was later certified as Ballot Measure 3. Since that time committee members and staff have participated in workgroups drafting revisions to ORS Chapter 475A, as well as measures to provide replacement funding and to expand the statutes under which criminal forfeiture could be applied.
AFOAC Committee Membership (as of 4/5/01)
| Senate Appointments |
House Appointments |
| Sen. Bev Clarno |
Rep. Gary Hansen |
| Sen. Avel Gordly - Vice Chair |
Rep. Rob Patridge - Chair |
| Sen. John Minnis |
[Vacant] |
| Governor Appointments |
Attorney General Appointments |
| Dave Fidanque, Oregon ACLU |
Michelle Burrows, Defense Attorney |
| Paul Loving, Attorney in private practice |
Tim Colahan, Harney County District Attorney |
| Susie Penhollow, Deschutes County |
Rick Lewis, Silverton Police Chief |
| Professional affiliations of the Governor and Attorney General appointments are provided for identification purposes only. These members serve at the request of the appointing authority and are not representing any private interest. |
Back to Top
REPORTING PROCESS
The committee adopted a new reporting process that went into effect on March 1, 1999. That process applies to all cases with a judgment date on or after that date. Forms collected for cases with judgment prior to March 1, 1999 have been archived.
Reporting occurs in four stages. In the first step, as required by ORS 475A.120 (3) and 475A.125 (9), forfeiture counsels submit Form 1 detailing seizure information for all forfeiture cases regardless of outcome. This form is completed after judgment is obtained in each case. Following distribution of forfeited assets, counsel also submits Form 2 for cases where agencies realized gross receipts of $10,000 or more. This form reports the distribution of proceeds, but does not capture information for all of the cases reported on Form 1.
All local governments that have received funds from asset forfeiture during the year are required to send an Annual Report (Form 3) that reports how it spent forfeiture proceeds in their most recent fiscal year. Funds may derive from cases initiated in prior years and include interest from accounts carried forward from the previous fiscal year. No attempt is made to correlate these funds with individual cases.
Finally, agencies use Form 4 when remitting payment for the Asset Forfeiture Account. This form captures the contribution amount per case as well as noting those cases where costs exceeded forfeiture proceeds. (Copies of the AFOAC reporting forms and instructions are attached at the end of this report.)
Information in the Seizure Data section is based on 1,526 seizures reported on Form 1 by forfeiture counsels to the Asset Forfeiture Oversight Advisory Committee between January 1 and December 31, 2000. While staff has made every effort to ensure that the data is accurate and uniform, the information is only as complete as that provided by the reporting agencies. Due to the nature of forfeiture proceedings, in which multiple categories of drugs or property types are seized, the total of all categories will not equal the total number of cases.
Unlike a criminal proceeding, the property that has been seized is the defendant in the civil forfeiture proceeding. The property owner may appear as the claimant. As there are often multiple defendant properties in the forfeiture proceeding, it is also possible to have multiple claimants associated with a single seizure. It is also possible for different claims to be filed on different parts of the property that has been seized.
The data in the remainder of this report is presented in a simplified format that should be easier to interpret than the format used in the report for 1999. Rather than report every combination of property as a different category, each class of property is reported as one category. Similarly, related narcotics are grouped together, with totals for cocaine and crack cocaine as one category, and amphetamine, methamphetamine and its precursors as another category.
SEIZURE DATA
The seizure reporting form (Form 1) requests forfeiture counsel to report the all types of suspected controlled substances associated with investigation that led to seizure. Table 1 shows the number of cases for each class of suspected controlled substances, the number of cases where that was the only controlled substance, as well as the cases in which some other drug was involved. For instance, marijuana was found in 538 cases, but was the only drug reported in 350 cases, indicating that it was found in combination with other controlled substances in 188 cases. In 67 of those other cases, marijuana was found in combination with cocaine or "crack," and in 13 cases it was found in combination with heroin. Adding all of the values for the drug alone and in combination with other drugs will total to more than the value for "all cases" since a single case may involve more than one other drug in combination.
"Cocaine" includes both cocaine proper and crack cocaine, and "Meth" includes methamphetamine, its precursors, and amphetamine ("Speed"). Controlled substances reported in the "Other" category included psilcocybin or Psilcocybe mushrooms (8 cases), hashish or hash oil (5 cases), Diazepam (4 cases), Valium (2 cases), and one instance each of Phendimetrazide, Clonazepam, methylamine, Hydrocodone, Vicoden and muscle relaxant.
|
Table 1. CY2000 Forfeiture Cases by Substance Involved and Combination of Substances
|
Controlled
Substance |
All
Cases
|
Alone |
In Combination With:
|
|
Marijuana
|
Cocaine
|
Heroin
|
Meth
|
LSD
|
Other
|
Unknown
|
| Marijuana |
538 |
350 |
|
67 |
13 |
101 |
6 |
28 |
0 |
| Cocaine |
438 |
276 |
67 |
|
76 |
35 |
1 |
5 |
0 |
| Heroin |
227 |
125 |
13 |
76 |
|
20 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
| Meth |
542 |
384 |
101 |
35 |
20 |
|
1 |
13 |
0 |
| LSD |
8 |
1 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
0 |
| Other |
50 |
13 |
28 |
5 |
1 |
13 |
1 |
|
0 |
| Unknown |
50 |
50 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
| "All Cases" includes all of the forfeiture cases in which this substance was found, whether in combination with other substances or alone. |
| "Alone" includes only those cases in which only this substance was found. |
| "In Combination With" includes only those cases in which the drug in the left column appeared in combination with the drug indicated in the column heading. |
The seizure reporting form divides the type of property seized into five classifications: Conveyance, Currency, Real Property, Weapons and Other personal property. Currency is defined as including any negotiable instrument of US currency, including travelers checks and money orders, balance in deposit, or other accounts and securities. Currency does not include coin collections or foreign currency, which are considered as "other personal property." Eighty-five percent of the seizures involved currency, while real property was involved in only two percent of the seizures. Table 2 details the nature of the property associated with different categories of drugs seized.
|
Table 2. CY2000 Forfeiture Cases by Substance Involved and Property Seized.
|
| |
All Cases |
Currency |
Conveyance |
Weapons |
Real Property |
Other Property |
| All Cases |
|
1293 |
336 |
120 |
30 |
264 |
| Marijuana |
538 |
460 |
115 |
72 |
21 |
106 |
| Cocaine |
438 |
383 |
114 |
25 |
4 |
67 |
| Heroin |
227 |
209 |
43 |
3 |
0 |
29 |
| Meth |
542 |
450 |
131 |
53 |
5 |
116 |
| LSD |
8 |
7 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Thirty-six percent of seizures involved suspected methamphetamine (including its precursors and amphetamine). Thirty-five percent of cases involved marijuana, 29 percent involved cocaine or crack, and 14 percent involved heroin. eighty-five percent of the seizures included currency, 22 percent one or more conveyances, and two percent involved real property.
|
Back to Top
Nature of Prohibited Conduct
The Committee receives reports on civil forfeitures relating to drug crimes. ORS 475A.005 (11) defines prohibited conduct for purposes of forfeiture as including violation of, solicitation to violate, attempt to violate or conspiracy to violate any provisions of ORS 475.005 to 475.825 and 475.805 to 475.999 when the conduct constitutes either a felony or misdemeanor (as those terms are defined in ORS 161.525 and 161.545).
Table 3 lists the nature of the drug violation establishing grounds for forfeiture and the associated controlled substances. The first line of the table shows all cases in which that charge was listed, while the second line shows cases in which the charge was the only charge in the case. The other lines indicate cases with which only the one drug was associated or that drug in combination with others. "DCS wo/MCS" means cases in which delivery of the controlled substance was charged, but not manufacture (since the two charges are often filed in combination).
For example, manufacturing marijuana was charged in 90 cases, and delivery alone in 241 cases. Hence delivery and manufacture were charged in an additional 86 cases (327 minus 241) and manufacture was charged in addition to some other offense in the other four cases. Data regarding possession, delivery and manufacture include the lesser-included offense of attempt.
Forfeiture cases involving the delivery (DCS) of marijuana exceeded the number of cases involving methamphetamine. Conversely, the latter was more frequently associated with the charges of unlawful manufacturing (MCS) or possession (PCS) of a controlled substance. (The crimes of solicitation and conspiracy were infrequently charged, and usually in combination with the crimes of possession, manufacture, or delivery.)
|
Table 3. CY2000 Forfeiture Cases by Substance Involved and Charges Filed.
|
| |
MCS |
DCS |
DCS wo/MCS |
PCS |
| All Cases |
346 |
1328 |
1015 |
1403 |
| No Other Charge |
6 |
80 |
80 |
139 |
|
| Marijuana |
90 / 146 |
327 / 500 |
241 / 361 |
287 / 466 |
| Cocaine |
12 / 46 |
184 / 384 |
176 / 345 |
212 / 425 |
| Heroin |
6 / 21 |
115 / 209 |
109 / 189 |
121 / 221 |
| Meth |
142 / 197 |
308 / 450 |
183 / 272 |
366 / 518 |
| LSD |
0 |
1 / 7 |
1 / 6 |
1 / 8 |
PCS - Possession of a Controlled Substance; DCS - Delivery of a Controlled Substance; MCS - Manufacture of a Controlled Substance.
Values for the various controlled substances represent cases in which that substance was found alone (first value) or in combination with some other controlled substance (second value). |
| Twenty-three percent of reported seizures were on the basis of manufacture of a controlled substance, while nine percent were on the basis of possession only. |
Back to Top
Law Enforcement Action
In civil asset forfeiture, the property seized for forfeiture is the defendant in the case, but the person or persons from whom the property is seized is often arrested, charged or otherwise involved in a corresponding criminal proceeding. Table 4 lists the action taken by law enforcement against the person or persons from whom the property was seized and the associated controlled substances.
The data is based on the number of reports of seizures, not the number of affected individuals. The actions are divided into five classifications: Arrested/Cited, Excluded, Indicted/Charged, No (arrest, citation or criminal charge) and Unknown.
In 628 cases (41 percent of the reported seizures) there was an arrest, or citation, and indictment or charging of at least one individual for the suspected criminal activity associated with the seizure. In 58 additional cases, there was an indictment or charge without an arrest or citation. In 1444 cases (95 percent), there was an arrest, citation, indictment, or charge reported. In the remaining 82 cases (5 percent) there was no such action reported. The committee does not gather information regarding the disposition of any criminal proceeding.
|
Table 4. CY2000 Forfeiture Cases by Substance Involved and Law Enforcement Action.
|
| |
Arrested / Cited |
Excluded |
Indicted / Charged |
No |
Unknown |
| Marijuana |
484 |
18 |
247 |
10 |
13 |
| Cocaine |
418 |
28 |
238 |
3 |
3 |
| Heroin |
213 |
18 |
122 |
1 |
2 |
| Meth |
487 |
4 |
210 |
10 |
13 |
| LSD |
8 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
|
Ninety five percent of seizures resulted in a corresponding criminal action against one or more individuals.
|
Back to Top
Innocent Owner Claim Information
Oregon forfeiture law allows persons with interest in seized property to file a claim stating that they are either an innocent owner (not involved in or having knowledge of the associated criminal activity), or that the property was not obtained through or is not profit of the associated criminal activity. Claims were filed in 449 cases, or 29% of the cases. This represents a slight increase from 1999 when hte claims were filed in 28 percent of the cases. In some cases multiple parties filed claims. The committee does not collect data directly related to the disposition of such claims.
| Table 5. Cases in which claims were filed against property seized for forfeiture. |
| Claimant |
Number of Cases
|
| Person from whom property was seized |
368 |
| Other interested party |
89 |
| Financial Institution |
9 |
| Unreported |
23 |
| Number of cases with claims - since some cases involved multiple claims, this does not represent the total number of claims. |
449 |
|
Twenty-nine percent of the reported seizures resulted in a claim being filed by one or more interested parties.
|
Back to Top
Circumstances of Seizure
Table 6 lists the circumstances of the seizure. These circumstances include Search Warrant or Seizure Order, Probable Cause, Vehicle Consent Search, Other Consent Search, Public Health or Safety, Other or any combination of these. The "Other" category includes property inventories (as when a vehicle is impounded) and searches incident to arrest. The table indicates the total number of cases for each circumstance regardless of the suspected controlled substance. The number of cases totals to more than the total number of reports due to multiple grounds for seizures in many cases.
| Table 6. Circumstances of the Seizure. |
| Circumstance |
Number of Cases
|
| Search Warrant / Seizure Order |
397 |
| Probable Cause (includes 900 without warrant) |
1012 |
| Vehicle Consent |
108 |
| Other Consent Search |
269 |
| Public Health / Safety |
23 |
| Other (e.g., inventories) |
122 |
|
Property seizures were based on probable cause searches in 59 percent of the reported cases.
|
Back to Top
DISPOSITIONAL DATA
Forfeiture counsel declined to pursue civil forfeiture action in 334 (22 percent) of the 1,526 reported forfeiture cases. The information contained in this section relates only to the disposition of the 1,192 civil forfeiture proceedings in those cases that were not declined by forfeiture counsel. This committee does not gather information regarding the disposition of any corresponding criminal proceeding. Numbers in this section may reflect actions pertaining to multiple claimants in a single forfeiture case.
Claimant Representation
Claimants were assisted by legal counsel in 214 cases (18 percent, an increase from 14 percent in 1999). In six cases the claimant was assisted by legal counsel, however counsel was not formally retained to represent the claimant regarding the civil matter. In four cases, the claimant was represented, but the manner of representation was not reported.
| Table 7. Claimant Representation in Forfeiture Cases. |
Number of cases
|
| At some time other than judgment |
41 |
| At time of judgment only |
47 |
| Both at time of judgment and time other than judgment |
116 |
| Assisted only |
6 |
Under ORS 475A.110 (4), claimants shall be awarded costs, disbursements and attorney´s fees if claimant prevails. There were no reported cases in which the court awarded attorney fees to claimant´s counsel.
|
Claimants were represented by legal counsel in 18 percent of the cases.
|
Default Judgment
Default judgments were reported in 1013 cases, 85 percent of the cases in which forfeiture was not declined, a decrease from 90 percent in 1999. In 87 percent of the default cases, the judgment was issued on the basis of no claim being filed, an increase from 84 percent in 1999.
| Table 8. Default Judgments. |
| Reason for Default |
Number of cases
|
| No claim filed |
881 |
| Judicial, no answer |
83 |
| Defective claim |
31 |
| Other |
28 |
|
Eighty-five percent of the forfeiture actions resulted in a judgment of default. Of these, 87 percent resulted from no claim being filed.
|
Stay of Proceedings, Expedited Hearing Request
The claimant or the government may request a stay of the forfeiture proceeding until such time as any corresponding criminal case has been resolved. A stay of proceeding was requested in 20 cases, an increase from 12 in 1999. Three of these were requested by the government agency prosecuting the case, and one was requested by both the government agency and the claimant. Claimants requested the remaining 16.
Claimants may file requests for an expedited hearing to order the return of seized property. There were no cases reported in which an expedited hearing was requested.
Contested Hearing, Other Disposition, Mitigation Hearing, Appeal
In 11 cases there was a trial or other proceeding that led to judgment, a decrease from 21 in 1999. One case was found for the claimant, two cases resulted in a mixed summary judgment and the remaining eight cases were found for the government (38 percent, half the rate of 76 percent in 1999). The court was the finder of fact in all of these cases.
There were 174 cases in which judgment was not reported as being the result of a default or a contested hearing (15 percent, up from 11 percent in 1999). Of these cases, 120 were settled by stipulated judgment (69 percent, a slight decrease from 71 percent in 1999). No disposition was reported in 31 cases, and "other" was reported in one case.
| Table 9. Disposition of Contested Cases. |
Number of cases
|
| Settled by stipulated judgment |
120 |
| Dismissed by forfeiture counsel |
20 |
| Summary release |
0 |
| Settled by stipulated judgment associated with criminal case |
2 |
Two cases involved a mitigation hearing request (there were none in 1999) and mitigation was not granted in either case. Both cases involved marijuana only, and one involved real property. There were no cases in which an appeal was filed.
|
Of the 174 cases where judgment was not entered as a result of default or contested hearing, 69 percent were settled by stipulated judgment not associated with a corresponding criminal case.
|
Back to Top
ACCOUNTING DATA
For the 1,192 cases that were not declined by forfeiture counsel, law enforcement agencies reported seizure of $2,194,199 in cash during calendar year 2000 (up from $1,195,383 in 1999), resulting in a forfeited amount of $1,885,730 (86 percent of the amount seized, down from 92 percent in 1999). Information regarding the actual value of property seized and distribution of proceeds is not available until the property is liquidated by the law enforcement agency. That information is summarized in the Asset Distribution section below.
Of the 1,192 cases that were not declined, 453 cases involved seizure of property that was not currency. Table 10 lists those cases based on the estimated value of the non-currency property seized. Twenty-seven percent of seizures involved non-cash property values of $5,000 or less, the same as in 1999.
There were 30 cases involving seizure of real property, up from 27 in 1999. Of these, 19 involved marijuana only, five involved methamphetamine only, four involved cocaine and two involved psilocybin only.
There were 195 cases in which all or part of the seized assets was returned to a claimant prior to judgment, of which 108 were non-cash property. The committee does not gather data on the nature of the property returned.
| Table 10. Estimated value of property seized, excluding cash. |
Number of cases
|
| Less than $1,000 |
171 |
| $1,000 - $5,000 |
151 |
| $5,001 - $10,000 |
47 |
| $10,001 - $25,000 |
42 |
| $25,001 - $100,000 |
31 |
| Over $100,000 |
11 |
The median value of cash seized is $361 (with a total of $2,194,199), and an average of $1,850 (with a range of $10 to $85,920). This indicates that the distribution of seizures is heavily skewed toward the lower end of the range.
Of $2.2 million cash seized, $1.9 million was forfeited at time of judgment.
Twenty-seven percent of the prosecuted forfeiture cases involved estimated non-cash property values of $5,000 or less.
Half of the cases in which cash was seized involved less than $361 cash seized.
|
Back to Top
ASSET DISTRIBUTION
The following information describes the manner in which forfeited assets are distributed pursuant to a judgment in a forfeiture case. Forfeiture counsels provide this information on Form 2 on a case by case basis as soon as reasonably possible following liquidation and distribution of all assets associated with the case. The reporting of this data is only required for cases where total receipts available for distribution are greater than or equal to $10,000. However many agencies continue to report other cases regardless of the value of total receipts. It does not include the Oregon State Police, except where cases are reported by a cooperating interagency narcotics task force or other agency. During calendar year 2000, the Committee received 480 distribution reports (compared to 1,526 seizure reports) which are included in this data.
It is important to remember that information regarding distribution of assets is not received until all property associated with the forfeiture action has been liquidated. This liquidation process may take up to a year from the date of final disposition. Therefore, many of the cases reported in this section are from previous years and do not correspond to cases reported in the previous sections of this report. Furthermore, there is no uniform manner in which agencies determine costs associated with the forfeiture action. Some agencies deduct actual costs, while others take an equal percentage from each case.
Cash forfeited and total receipts available for distribution increased approximately two-fold over last year, reflecting increased reporting and a somewhat greater average value of seizures. Interestingly, total reported costs did not change significantly from last year, so that a much larger amount was available for distribution.
These numbers should only be used to compare future numbers generated by this database, where there is some assurance they will be internally consistent. These numbers should not be used for budgeting purposes or to compare against the fiscal year reports (Form 3) in the next section or the seizure reports (Form 1) in the previous section.
During CY2000, $43,567 had been deposited into the Asset Forfeiture Oversight Account, which would indicate total funds available for distribution to be $1,737,976. The Oversight Account supports the Committee staff and activities.
|
Forfeiting agencies reported distributing $1,765,937 in forfeiture proceeds. Investigation and litigation costs were reimbursed with 34 percent of those proceeds. Of the $1,132,199 in proceeds available for distribution, seven percent went to drug lab cleanup and oversight activities and 93 percent was distributed pursuant to statute and intergovernmental agreements.
|
| Actual cash forfeited at time of judgment |
$ 944,162 |
| Interest earned on forfeited cash pending judgment |
$ 34,902 |
| Liquidated proceeds of other property |
$ 698,287 |
| Total Receipts available for distribution |
$ 1,765,937 |
| COSTS: |
| Publications: |
$ 32,463 |
|
| Attorney Fees: |
$ 281,962 |
|
| Investigative Costs: |
$ 317,952 |
|
| Other: |
$ 33,714 |
|
| TOTAL DEDUCTIONS |
$ 677,275 |
| Net Proceeds Available for distribution * |
$ 1,132,199 |
| Deduct DEQ Illegal Drug Cleanup Fund Deposit |
$ 55,739 |
| Deduct AFOAC Account Deposit |
$ 26,794 |
Net cash distributed to seizing agencies, governmental
entities and department, including prosecution |
$ 1,051,397 |
| Total estimated value of property in use by seizing agency |
$ 47,510 |
| Total estimated value of weapons and equipment destroyed |
$ 4,580 |
| Total estimated value of equipment donated to education |
$ 0 |
*This amount includes cases where investigation and/or prosecution costs exceeded the value of forfeited property, for which net proceeds are recorded as $0.
Back to Top
LOCAL GOVERNMENT USE OF PROCEEDS
In addition to the forms completed by forfeiture counsel on a case-by-case basis, ORS 475A.120 (5) requires any political subdivision of the state that receives forfeiture proceeds to submit a report detailing how the proceeds have been or will be used. These reports (Form 3) are completed for the fiscal year of the agency and are submitted to the committee on or before December 15 of each year. The following information is based on reports received detailing activity for the fiscal year ending in 2000.
To date, 38 agencies have reported, including 14 cities, 10 counties and 14 of the 24 interagency narcotics task forces. Reports were filed for three other task forces by another jurisdiction that was responsible for that agency´s accounts, those included two counties and one city. This represents a substantial increase in compliance from 1999 when 25 jurisdictions filed reports. This can also be seen in the increase in the reported balance carried over from 1999, $445,122, to the beginning balance in 2000 of $1,231,467.
The information in this section cannot be directly compared to information in the Asset Distribution Section. This information is based on local government fiscal years and may include forfeiture cases not subject to seizure reports. The previous section includes only data required to be reported (cases involving $10,000 or more) or is voluntarily reported.
This table details activity reported by local governments regarding use of funds deposited in their forfeiture fund accounts. There were some inconsistencies in the way agencies reported the amounts requested by Form 3, so the "calculated" values in the table will not be arithmetically correct. One task force, for example, listed a large value for investigative costs, but indicated that that amount was paid by participating agencies, and so did not subtract that amount from the proceeds. In other cases there were minor arithmetic errors. No attempt was made to correct or modify reported values, except as noted where negative balances were recorded as zero.
| Balance from previous fiscal year: * |
$1,391,064 |
| Total post-judgment receipts which became available for distribution this fiscal year from drug asset forfeitures including interest (excluding federal forfeitures) |
$2,803,291 |
| Amount of post-judgment receipts expended for costs pertaining to forfeiture action |
|
| |
Publications |
$52,343 |
|
| |
Attorney Fees |
$453,218 |
|
| |
Investigative Costs |
$504,680 |
|
| |
Other |
$47,856 |
|
| Total Costs |
$1,050,818 |
| Net receipts available after costs ** |
$1,768,864 |
| Amount deposited in DEQ Illegal Drug Cleanup Fund |
$71,154 |
| Amount deposited in Asset Forfeiture Oversight Account |
$32,966 |
| Current proceeds from drug asset forfeitures (excluding federal forfeitures) distributed under ORS 475A |
$1,665,453 |
| Total amount of post-judgment forfeiture proceeds available for distribution (current proceeds plus previous balance) |
$2,568,027 |
| Amount of proceeds expended during fiscal year and general purpose for which it was used (these amounts should not have been taken as costs above) |
|
| |
Law Enforcement |
$1,164,154 |
|
| |
Prosecution |
$315,480 |
|
| |
Forfeiture expenses paid/reimbursed |
$50,207 |
|
| |
Removal of toxic substances |
$15,123 |
|
| |
Drug Treatment, Education, Prevention |
$118,028 |
|
| |
Other |
$82,662 |
|
| Total Expenditures |
$1,745,684 |
| Amount of post-judgment forfeiture proceeds retained *** |
$1,152,542 |
* excludes two reported negative balances totaling $381,725
** excludes one negative balance of $15,613
*** excludes four negative balances totaling $422,282
Back to Top
COMMITTEE PROGRESS
During the past year the committee has continued to compile information from forms submitted from forfeiture counsels and local jurisdictions as required by ORS Chapter 475A.
The committee has been active in disseminating information about civil asset forfeiture in Oregon through forums held in conjunction with the annual meetings of the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and the Oregon District Attorneys Association. These both focused on the nature of forfeiture in Oregon in relation to the proposed provisions of an initiative petition which was later certified as Ballot Measure 3 and adopted by the voters in November, 2000. Additional information has been made available via the Internet on the Criminal Justice Commission website: http://www.ocjc.state.or.us.
Committee members and staff have actively supported the Joint Interim Judiciary Committee´s efforts to amend ORS Chapter 475A to bring it into compliance with the provisions of Ballot Measure 3.
Committee members and staff have also been active participants in workgroups under the auspices of the Community Relations Workgroup of the Governor´s Public Safety Planning and Policy Council responding to 1977 HB 2433. That bill expanded the authority for law enforcement agencies to make traffic stops, while requiring them to adopt policies prohibiting the use of racial profiling. This effort has culminated in several agencies initiating traffic stop data collection programs. Discussion is continuing on ways to coordinate this effort statewide and to provide for a central repository of the data collected.
Back to Top
AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND ADVISORY BODIES THAT ADDRESS FORFEITURE-RELATED ISSUES
- Law Enforcement Agency Internal Affairs Division - Receives and reviews complaints of alleged police misconduct.
- City/County Elected Officials - Provides budgetary oversight on use of forfeiture proceeds, provides policy oversight of law enforcement agency activities and ordinances.
- City/County Forfeiture Counsel - Provides legal advice to seizing agencies, reviews seizures for potential application of forfeiture laws and ordinances.
- Governor´s Office Citizen Representative - Receives complaints of alleged misconduct by criminal justice personnel or perceived injustices.
- Asset Forfeiture Oversight Advisory Committee - Twelve-member body appointed by state officials to report on the number and nature of forfeiture proceedings and make recommendations on forfeiture laws and processes.
- Environmental Quality Commission/DEQ - Administers Illegal Drug Cleanup Fund, which provides funding to law enforcement agencies to clean up illegal drug labs.
- Legislative Assembly - Provides budgetary oversight on use of forfeiture proceeds by state agencies, provides policy oversight of law enforcement agency activities and laws and responds to constituent concerns of improper activity or perceived injustices in the criminal justice system.
Back to Top
|
|
| |
|
|
