It does not restrict in any way the power of the police to seize drug dealers' profits, illegal drugs, contraband or meth labs. Under the initiative, however, law enforcement would not be able to keep forfeited property because that creates an incentive to abuse the forfeiture process. Instead, the initiative requires that all forfeiture proceeds go first to pay for administrative and court costs, then to compensate victims of forfeiture-related crimes, and any remainder would go to the schools, as was the case before 1986. To Utah law enforcement uses asset forfeiture prudently and properly, as stated clearly in a comprehensive audit performed by the Utah State Legislative Auditor General, and released to the public in November 1999. In its comprehensive report, the Auditor General's office was unable to find a single example of an innocent owner losing property to asset forfeiture.
Forfeitures are subject to full due process and judicial review.
This should happen more, not less. Initiative B makes police liable to criminal prosecution for any errors-even those made acting in good faith. Representative Gary Cox Arguments Against Asset forfeiture is a viable and legitimate tool for law enforcement in combating criminal enterprise. To keep criminal resources from being used for future criminal activities. To discourage criminal activity by removing its profit motive.