Where I stand—Brian Greenspun: Where seized assets go

Thursday, March 29, 2001 | 9:14 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

PROPERTY SEIZURES ... part two.

If lawmaking is like sausage making -- a claim once made and never disputed -- the Nevada Legislature keeps grinding its way toward adjournment with hopes of actually attaining some measure of success. The big ones are yet to come, including what and how to do a funding formula for our woefully undersupported school systems. And the real tough ones -- politically speaking, that is -- will probably come in just under the sine die wire at the end of May. Just like they always do.

In the meantime, there is plenty the lawmakers are doing in their efforts to make life in the great state of Nevada as pleasant and livable as possible. One of these legal sideshows appears headed out of the Senate and into the Assembly for further consideration. It deals with what most people would consider the mundane and lackluster world of property seizures and forfeitures. It is little noticed because it affects very few Nevadans and, therefore, its sex appeal is minimal. Its news value even less so.

Except for the fact that one of Las Vegas' most well-known businessmen and gamblers, Billy Walters, is knee deep in the effort to bring Nevada's seizure laws into the light of 21st century common sense. His efforts have pitted him against many in the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department -- I said many because not all of our law enforcement people are blind to the flaws in the current system -- and because of his ability to make news, he has made Senate Bill 36 somewhat of a hot potato and a bill definitely worth watching.

I have written in the past about why I think Billy's efforts and those of Senate Judiciary Chairman Mark James to change the existing law are long overdue. The ability of the state to seize the property of citizens in advance of any showing of wrongdoing has long been one of those police powers that must be granted sparingly and executed judiciously if our ability to live free has any meaning in today's complicated world. Senate Bill 36 would help balance the needs of law enforcement with the constitutional requirement that people in this country must be treated as innocent unless proven otherwise.

It is no secret that Billy Walters is currently being persecuted, er, I mean prosecuted by Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa for gambling. That's right. Three times she has indicted Walters for gambling and three times the indictments have been thrown out of court. She's trying now, I am told, for a lucky fourth. Unable to fathom a good reason for the overzealous prosecution of the case which, apparently, has no violation of law attached to it, the only answer must be in the $3 million that the police seized when they thought they had the fruits of a crime. The crime, of course, was bookmaking, which was 180 degrees from what Walters the bettor was doing.

That brings us to SB36. Right now the police get to keep all the loot they seize and, if I understand what Metro has already admitted, they get to spend it any way they see fit because there is no public scrutiny or accountability. I am not suggesting any such thing but in the hands of people other than law enforcement officers, that kind of setup is a license to steal. What James' committee is trying to do is remove the incentive for any such thoughts and create enough of a burden on the police to make sure that the citizen gets a fairer break before his assets are snatched in the name of the law.

After some pretty exciting testimony a few weeks ago by Walters and others, it became abundantly clear that someone -- that's usually the law -- had to put some accountability into the seizure process. If Metro can take and spend as it likes, the incentive is to take more and spend more. Not a very good recipe for proper behavior by those charged with upholding the law.

This week the proposed amendments from Mark James took shape. He would change the burden of proof to one of clear and convincing evidence, which is a proper step up from the very low burden that currently must be met before a person's assets can revert to the state, in this case the police department to use as it sees fit. In some cases, these forfeitures can take place without a conviction for criminal wrongdoing.

Another change proposed by the chairman is that the monies forfeited be divided up between the school districts of the counties in which the seizures took place and the police agencies. The split would be 70 percent to the school districts for books and computers, with the rest going to the folks who took the money in the first place.

While this is a noble pursuit -- heaven knows our schools could use the money -- it still is wrongheaded if the idea is to discourage the police from making seizures except in the most compelling cases. First, if our schools need money -- a fact that is beyond dispute -- then the people of this state, this county and this community ought to step up and write the checks needed to make sure our children get first-class educations. It is absurd that the fastest-growing state and one of the wealthiest communities in the country have school-funding formulas that rank us consistently just above Mississippi and Alabama.

Second, by giving the first $100,000 to police departments and then splitting the rest 70-30, we haven't removed the incentive from the police agencies, which are always looking for ways to get more money. Again, if our police departments need more money to do their jobs properly, then our elected officials ought to step up to the podiums of public discourse and make the case for the citizens to foot the bill.

It seems better and much saner to send all forfeited assets to the general fund. That way the people we elect will be accountable for the dollars spent, however they choose to do so. If they want to give the dollars over for books and computers, so be it. If they want to give it to law enforcement, that's fine, too. At least that way the incentive for snatching our assets will be separated from the ability to spend.

As for the chairman's plan to make the effective date of the bill next October -- so it wouldn't apply to the infamous Walters case -- that's also a good idea. Except in one respect. Changing the burden of proof for forfeitures should be prospective. But regarding the money seized and not yet subjected to forfeiture hearings -- as in Billy's $3 million -- the new law should apply as to where the dollars will go. There is just too much to suggest that the continuing abuse of the indictment process by our attorney general is somehow connected to that cache of cash awaiting the pleasure of the police.

When you are confused about why things happen, just follow the money. That particular trail is strewn with 3 million reasons why Billy Walters remains in law enforcement's sights. Take the money away, and their vision of justice should get a lot clearer.

archive