Legislators line up to debate seizure of property by police
State Sen. Kyle Loveless is once again filing a bill that would prohibit authorities from keeping property seized from people who are not convicted of a crime, and once again the legislation is being criticized as an affront to law enforcement.
The Oklahoma City Republican was unable to get such a measure out of committee last year. He has added new elements to try to make it more palatable this time.
Rep. Scott Biggs, R-Chickasha, a former assistant district attorney, is already lining up in opposition. He and others in the law enforcement community say the current system is not broken and doesn’t need to be fixed.
If police seize property from a person on the belief that it is tied to criminal activity, a judge ultimately has to approve the seizure, he said. If the person challenges it and prevails, the state would pay attorney fees.
“This is nothing but an attack on law enforcement,” Biggs said. “It’s like they are saying this is a police state and we are
taking people’s property.
“Nothing is being stolen on the side of the road. There is notice and due process and a judge has the final say, not officers on side of the road as they are portraying.”
Loveless, R-Oklahoma City, said conviction is the proper standard to determine if authorities can keep a defendant’s property, but has built exceptions into his legislation to deal with law enforcement concerns.
The conviction requirement would be waived in cases where the property is valued at more than $50,000, or if a person denies a tie to the property, is deported or otherwise unavailable, or is granted immunity in exchange for testimony.
If authorities ultimately get to keep the property, it would go to the governmental body in charge of the law enforcement department involved, not to a generalized state fund for a time, which was a point of contention in the previous legislation.
Loveless also said his bill has reporting requirements that will allow for greater transparency so that the public can more easily find out how much property is being seized.
He said law enforcement in other states like California, Ohio and Florida, have cooperated with asset forfeiture reform movements, and he hopes Oklahoma authorities will do the same.
A case last year highlighted concerns about seized property. A total of $53,000 in cash was seized from a man who later proved the money belonged to a Burmese Christian rock band.
Proponents of existing forfeiture laws say the case was an outlier and proves the current system works. Opponents say the instance shows the potential for abuse.
Opposition to change in current forfeiture laws would seem to still be strong in Oklahoma.
Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater has criticized the addition of a conviction requirement.
Biggs said seizure actions are already subject to public record laws, so he rejects the transparency argument.
“Law enforcement is constantly being attacked, and I won’t be a part of it,” he said.