Missouri State Reform Victory 

     by Richard Lawrence Miller, F.E.A.R. Chronicles, Vol 2. No. 1,
(November, 1993) 

     In its 1993 regular session the Missouri legislature enacted
two key forfeiture reforms: property cannot be seized unless the
owner is convicted of a felony, and law enforcement agencies cannot
keep the proceeds.  These reforms, along with others contained in
House Bill 562 and Senate Bill 180, will eliminate classic
forfeiture abuses.  The bills also provide that "rights of an
innocent owner of property are superior to any right or claim of
the state or county." 

     State senator Wayne Goode (D., Saint Louis) became alarmed by
home town newspaper stories about abuses and introduced reform
legislation last year.  That effort became ensnared in a larger
revision of criminal statutes, and legislative maneuvering kept the
whole package from coming to a vote.  Nonetheless, Goode persevered
and this year the legislature not only enacted, but strengthened
the reforms that Goode initially proposed. 

     The reforms forbid forfeiture unless the property owner is
convicted of, or pleads guilty to a felony "substantially related"
to the forfeiture.  For example, local drug squads can no longer
acquire an expensive car if a fleck of marijuana is found under a
floor mat.  

     Police and prosecutors are now forbidden to use forfeitures as
part of a plea bargain, and cannot accept "any monetary payment or
other thing of value in exchange for the release of property
seized."  A court must certify that those conditions have been met
in every forfeiture case involving a plea bargain, and in every
forfeiture compromise or settlement.  

     This means state and local authorities can no longer use
forfeiture as a hammer to get a guilty plea.  Nor can they extort
money from property owners in order to release seized property,
while hiding settlement terms from courts (and therefore from the
public).  

     Under the Missouri House bill, if law enforcement authorities
meet all standards and complete a forfeiture, then those agencies
keep the proceeds of the forfeiture.  On the other hand, the
Missouri Senate bill mandates that forfeiture proceeds go to public
schools.  

     The Missouri Constitution directs all forfeiture proceeds to
public schools.  Previous litigation of this issue has determined
that schools must get the money as the Constitution commands. 
Therefore chances are very good that the Senate version will take
precedence over the conflicting provision of the House bill, and
state and local law enforcement agencies will no longer receive any
financial gain from forfeitures.

     In addition, state and local authorities may not "adopt out"
forfeitures to federal agencies without approval by a state circuit
judge.  Such approval cannot be given unless the property owner is
charged with a state or federal felony and the "investigation or
seizure" involves interstate activity or "would be better pursued
under federal forfeiture statutes." 

     The latter "federal forfeiture statutes" exemption is a
potential mischievous loophole. However, Dan Viets (president-elect
of the Missouri Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers) believes
that circuit judges will follow  the reform's spirit, and will not
approve adoptions without good cause.  

     Still another possibility of evasion is thwarted by the
following provision: "Any property seized by state or local peace
or reserve officers who are detached to, deputized or commissioned
by or working in conjunction with the federal agency shall remain
subject to the provisions of this section."  Thus a town
constable's possession of a federal "chicken inspector" badge
cannot transform a local or state forfeiture into a federal one.  

     Missouri's legislature is hardly on the cutting edge of
innovation in criminal law reform.  The success of this significant
forfeiture reform demonstrates the importance of news media
publicity, and the value of a persistent legislator committed to
the issue.  

     There seemed to be no passionate interest in issue at the
statehouse.  A majority of legislators simply saw the reforms as
common sense.  If such major reform can be achieved in Missouri, it
can be achieved in many other states.  If activists elsewhere tell
their legislators about the facts of the situation in their own
states, progress can be achieved.  

----------------

Editor's note:

     Richard lives in Kansas City and is the author of The Case for
Legalizing Drugs, published by Praeger, available at book stores.