Law enforcement tool unlikely to be altered

THE U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments recently about civil asset forfeiture by law enforcement, a topic that’s been of some interest in Oklahoma in recent years and continues to gain attention elsewhere.

The case before the high court involves an Indiana man whose $42,000 vehicle was taken by the government after he pleaded guilty to selling $260 of heroin to an undercover police officer. At issue is whether the Eighth Amendment protection from “excessive fines” applies to civil forfeitures at the state level.

Concerns about civil asset forfeiture in Oklahoma have centered on the fact that no conviction is required before someone’s property can be seized and forfeited. If law officers have reason to believe the property is to be used in a crime, they can hold it.

Oklahoma’s district attorneys say the practices in place are not being abused, and thus an overhaul isn’t needed. They have a champion in Attorney General Mike Hunter, who says previous reform efforts included “a lot of misinformation.”

Former state Sen. Kyle Loveless, R-Oklahoma City, led the reform push, introducing a bill late in the 2015 session that sought to raise the legal threshold before cash or property could be taken, and require that a person be convicted of a crime before forfeiture proceedings could begin. It went nowhere.

The following year, the Legislature approved a bill allowing judges to award attorney fees to people whose assets are wrongly seized by law enforcement. There’s been no further activity and may not be, because Loveless is no longer at the Legislature. He resigned in April 2017 and later pleaded guilty to three