|
Arguments
Against SB 175 S2
(Alert 2 for 2/25/04)
Summary: Read
an excellent 1-page
handout (in .pdf format) on some of the many problems
with SB 175 S2, provided by Mr. Arnold Gaunt. Additional
insights are provided below.
See another handout as
well, "Forfeiture
abuses do occur in Utah.
A caller confronted General
Shurtleff on talk radio, stating that, "The whole idea of
forfeitures is to make money for police departments."
Shurtleff responded:
- "Wrong... I flat out
disagree with you. That is not the purpose of forfeitures —
to make money for police departments... The purpose of
forfeiture and the purpose for every law enforcement I've
spoken with is to take the proceeds of crime; take away the
profit out of crime. That's the purpose and the basis for it."
(Source: Interview on
Jim Dexter Show, KTKK AM 630, August 5, 2003)
That same day, on a different
radio program, General Shurtleff stated this to the question
of whether we really need the federal government coming in to
prosecute Utah cases:
- "We don't have funding
enough... The problem is our task forces, they don't have
the funding. They are not being funded appropriately by the
legislature or county. The money has to come from the feds
and we need that additional assistance."
(Source: Interview on
Sheriff Richard Mack Show, KTKK AM 630, August 5, 2003)
Which is it? Is the goal of
forfeiture to attack crime or to make money? Salt Lake County
Attorney David Yocom seems to be more plain-spoken:
- "Our agencies have
nothing to gain by doing forfeitures. In fact there is a
disincentive for doing them when you consider costs we will
suffer and can no longer recoup under the law."
- (Source: "Law
makes forfeitures a hot potato," Kirsten Stewart,
Salt Lake Tribune, July 4, 2003.)
Should police not respond to a
homicide because they receive no financial reward?
Yocom is not alone in his
assessment: "Clark Harms, deputy Salt Lake County attorney,
said an added benefit to Valentine's bill is it will help
cash-strapped law enforcement agencies hire more officers."
(Source: "Seizure Law Put
in Play," Kirsten Stewart, Salt Lake Tribune, February
11, 2003)
And Senator Greg Bell stated in
the senate hearing a couple weeks ago: "You don't expect them
to do forfeitures if they don't get the money back, do you?"
Oh really? Does this mean that our law enforcement agencies
have no incentive to pursue murder and rape investigations?
- "Forfeiture is an
important crime fighting tool, but must only occur within
Constitutional limits. While I oppose civil forfeiture, I
support criminal forfeiture, once an individual has been
found guilty." — General Mark Shurtleff on his
2000 campaign literature.
Once in office, Shurtleff
opposed Initiative B. When confronted recently on talk radio,
he stated:
- "People have jumped on me
and said, 'Well you said during your campaign you supported
only criminal asset forfeiture.' And my position has always
been: In a pure philosophical sense, a pure constitutionally
philosophical sense, that's what makes the most sense is to
go strictly with the criminal asset forfeiture. But in the
real world, I think a lot of people recognize& that we're
going to include civil asset forfeiture." (Interview on
Sheriff Richard Mack Show, KTKK AM 630, August 5, 2003)
And General Shurtleff's chief
deputy Kirk Torgensen wrote:
- "Forfeiture has been part
of the law for centuries. There is nothing about it which is
unconstitutional or lacking in due process." — Kirk
Torgensen, chief deputy to Utah Attorney General Mark
Shurtleff
(Source: "Forfeiture
law rightly denies criminals their ill-gotten gains," Kirk
Torgensen, Salt Lake Tribune, July 6, 2003.)
Again, consider
Title 18, Section
983, U.S. Code to which more innocent Utah citizens would
be subjected to under SB 175 S2:
- (d) Innocent Owner
Defense.
- (1) An innocent owner's
interest in property shall not be forfeited under any civil
forfeiture statute. The claimant shall have the burden of
proving that the claimant is an innocent owner by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Nothing lacking in due process?
To be assumed guilty in America and to be forced to attempt to
prove one's innocence?
Citizens were not idiots when
they passed Initiative B by 69 percent of Utah voters in 2000.
Top
Download Fliers & Get
More Information
You
can view, download, and copy updated fliers against SB 175.
Visit our Volunteer Action Page
and make your neighbors aware of the threat to their rights
and community.
Note that the latest version
SB 175 differs
little from the first substitute or original bill. All
versions trample on your rights by providing Utah police
financial incentives to subject you to unjust federal
confiscation statutes.
Obtain more background information.
Top
If you have comments or suggestions, please
email us at info@accountabilityutah.org.
|
.jpg)