Document text
Measure 3 halts seizure inequities MT file foto Retired Ashland High School teacher Harry Detwiler, who had $35,000 seized by federal drug agents. Although his case would not be affected by a change in state law, his case has been much-discussed in the Measure 3 campaign to change Oregon property-forfeiture laws in the Nov. 7 election. Prevents police from keeping property if no conviction From wire and staff reports ASHLAND � If foes of forfeiture ever needed a poster boy, they found their man in the form of retired Ashland school teacher Harry Detwiler. Detwiler let a tenant install high-intensity lights on property he was renting in 1997, and swears he was as surprised as anybody when federal agents found 700 marijuana plants that were being grown beneath those lights. After raiding the Jacksonville property, those same federal agents paid a visit to Detwiler�s own home in Ashland and seized $35,000 from his safe. Detwiler insists to this day he knew nothing of the tenant�s pot-growing. The facts are on his side: He was never even charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one. But federal authorities kept his money anyway under laws intended to prove the old saying "Crime doesn�t pay." "They stole it from me," Detwiler told the Mail Tribune in February 1999. "That was my retirement nest egg. They took it. They kept it. It�s gone." Today, the 62-year-old retired teacher has become the poster boy for an initiative on the Nov. 7 ballot that would prohibit state and local authorities from keeping property if a suspect is not convicted.The U.S. Attorney�s office dismisses Detwiler�s version of events and insists federal agents followed proper procedures. And Measure 3 wouldn�t have made a difference for Detwiler, because his case fell under federal jurisdiction. But Oregon�s forfeiture law gives local authorities similar power and should be revoked by the people, Detwiler said. "I am trying to make folks aware," he said, "because tomorrow it could be them." Geoff Sugerman, who is running the campaign for Measure 3, said similar scenarios � involving state laws � happen all too often. "There are hundreds of cases of people losing their property when they haven�t been charged with a crime," he said. "And they never get their property back. It�s just wrong." Supporters of Measure 3 have said that as much as 68 percent of seized property is never returned � even without a conviction. John Bradley, an assistant Multnomah County district attorney, disputes that figure. He says about 94 percent of cases involving seizures have resulted in convictions. Bradley argues that the measure is a fix for a system that isn�t flawed. "This is a horrible mess. They were trying to get one thing and missed the mark," he said. "It�s going to take years and years to undo." Current Oregon law allows authorities to seize � and not return � property from people based on a determination of "probable cause" of wrongdoing. The law has allowed police to seize millions of dollars a year in Oregon, supporters of reform like Sugerman say. Measure 3, which has drawn $250,000 from California billionaire philanthropist George Soros and two other wealthy activists, would require convictions before authorities could dispose of � or pocket � seized property. If no charges are filed and no conviction occurs, the cash or property must be returned. The measure also would tighten reporting requirements for police. Under the measure, 75 percent of the proceeds from forfeited property must be earmarked for drug treatment and prevention programs. Current law allows police agencies to keep the majority of the proceeds. Jim Moore, a University of Portland political science professor, said the current forfeiture laws haven�t been shown to deter crime. But the measure, he said, likely wouldn�t solve other problems. "This is 2� pages of a constitutional amendment. You want to make sure there is a lot of thought going into it," he said. "This is someone wanting to get things done quickly." Opposition isn�t coming just from law enforcement officials. The Animal Legal Defense Fund has joined the fray, arguing the measure would bankrupt Oregon�s humane societies and shelters and keep abused animals in the hands of their abusers. That�s because animals are classified as property, and the measure could keep shelters from finding new homes for abused animals until criminal cases are over � a process that could take years. The measure has the support, however, of some strange bedfellows � including the American Civil Liberties Union, Oregon Gun Owners and the property-rights group Oregonians in Action. A Voters� Pamphlet statement co-written by David Fidanque of the ACLU and John Hellen, a lobbyist for OGO, argues that the measure would insure that seized property is really being taken from criminals � and not innocent property owners. "It is time to restore basic due process protections for property owners in Oregon," they said. Mail Tribune Home | Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. | Dow Jones & Co., Inc. | Privacy | Contact Us Copyright � 2000 Mail Tribune, Inc.