09/14/1988 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e III . ORDINANCE CONCERNING PROPERTY FORFEITURE FOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OFFENSES Public Safety Lieutenant Vic Mann made a flip chart presentation on the ordinance concerning property forfeiture for controlled substance offenses. He said the purpose of the ordinance is to remove profits from drug activity and to convert criminal assets into government resources. Lieutenant Mann said currently the department uses a Federal "adoption" forfeiture proceeding whereby seized assets are turned over to the Federal agency. He said there is currently an administrative proceeding, and the burden of proof lies with the defendant. He said the Federal government takes ten percent of what is seized. Lieutenant Mann said that Oregon state law on conveyances is processed through the District Attorney's Office which has a policy of not proceeding with forfeiture until the criminal trail is completed. The burden of proof is on the State. Forfeiture is also possible in criminal enterprise cases under the State "RICOII statute. Lieutenant Mann said there is some controversy about the ordinance, such as whether it is constitutional. He said that funds seized by a State official must go to the Common School Funds. The American Civil Liberties Union states that police officers are State officials. There are a number of cases pending, such as the Linn County Ordinance, in the State Court of Appeals that could affect the proposed ordinance. The type of conduct covered by the e ordinance is unlawful possession of a controlled substance, theft activity, and criminal conspiracy. Attempts were not included in the original draft because they usually involve entrapment issues. However, the department would like "attemptsll in the ordinance. Lieutenant Mann said that less than one ounce of marijuana is excluded. He said the burden of proof is at a civil, not a criminal, proceeding level and the City has the burden of proof. He added that unknowing or non-consenting parties have a defense. When real property is the subject of forfeiture, the City must prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the criminal law stan- dard) . Lieutenant Mann said that those with liens on vehicles receive notice and proceeds go to the General Fund. The council decides in the budget process how the funds should be used. Lieutenant Mann said the purpose of a local ordinance is to avoid loopholes in State and County laws. He said the coun- cil may wish to wait until the State cases are decided. Mr. Gleason said he recommends acting on the ordinance and then changing it if it is later judged unconstitutional. Ms. Ehrman asked if a City ordinance would take away from the County.s shares. Lieutenant Mann said that the County ordinance has not been adopted within the city limits; therefore the City does not currently use the County ordinance. Mr. Rutan asked if the City should adopt the County ordinance. Lieutenant Mann replied that the proceeds would then go to the County. Mr. Miller said he supports having a public hearing before adopting a City ordinance. e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 14, 1988 Page 5