YELLOW SHEET
Office of the State Auditor of Missouri
Claire McCaskill
|
YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri |
The following information was determined and conclusions reached during our office's audit of forfeited property.
| * | Total seizures in the state were approximately $47 million ($7 million by state law enforcement agencies and $40 million by federal law enforcement agencies) during the three years ended December 31, 1998. During this period, Missouri law enforcement agencies received more than $19 million in Equitable Sharing proceeds. Five law enforcement agencies received 71 percent of the Equitable Sharing proceeds distributed with the State Highway Patrol receiving approximately $3.5 million of these proceeds. | |
| * |
The majority (85%) of the money and property seized on investigations participated in by Missouri law enforcement officers are handled under federal forfeiture laws. |
|
| * |
The total seizure dollars of $47 million when compared to the state foundation formula would be less than 1 percent of the funding provided to local schools. In addition, the $3.5 million proceeds received by the Highway Patrol represents less than 1 percent of its state operating funding. |
|
| * |
The majority of seizure cases handled by federal agencies with local law enforcement participation relate to criminal investigations controlled or partially controlled by the federal agency or it is unlikely the seizure could have been successfully forfeited under the Criminal Activity Forfeiture Act (CAFA) as it is currently structured or has been interpreted. The local law enforcement participation usually relates to officers assigned to federal task forces. Due to the fact that these local law enforcement officers could be subject to conflicting state and federal forfeiture regulations it is unclear which regulations should take precedence when a seizure occurs. |
|
| * |
Local law enforcement officers sometimes did not report property which may have been subject to seizure under the CAFA to county Prosecuting Attorneys or the Attorney General prior to contacting federal authorities to handle the seizure. The prosecutors have not been given the opportunity to determine how to proceed with these potential forfeiture cases. |
|
| * |
The state's CAFA (Sections 513.600 to 513.653 RSMo 1994) has unclear, incomplete or restrictive requirements which need to be addressed: |
|
| 1. | Section 513.605 RSMo 1994 contains many definitions to be used when interpreting the CAFA; however, it fails to define when a "seizure" is considered to have taken place. | |
| 2. | The CAFA's restrictive time limits for when law enforcement officers must report seizures to prosecutors and for when the prosecutors must make a decision on when to file petitions for forfeiture may be contributing to some seizures being transferred by court order to federal authorities. | |
| 3. | Section 513.607 RSMo 1994 which requires prosecutors to file annual seizure reports with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) is unclear regarding what the DPS is to do with the reports and several other reporting issues. The statute also does not specify a required report format or address submission noncompliance. | |
| 4. | Section 513.647 RSMo 1994 allows seizures to be transferred to federal authorities under certain circumstances; however, the requirements allow virtually any seizure to be transferred by court order even when the corresponding criminal case remains in state courts to be prosecuted. | |
| 5. | The CAFA generally has been interpreted to prohibit seized property from being forfeited unless the individual the property is seized from is convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony charge substantially related to the seizure. However, for many traffic stops by law enforcement officers which result in suspected narcotics proceeds being discovered, the vehicle occupants committed no felony crime for which they can be charged related to these monies. The expanded use of In Rem proceedings could allow some of these seizures to be forfeited under the CAFA. | |
| 6. | Section 513.653 RSMo 1994 requires law enforcement agencies receiving Equitable Sharing proceeds to have those monies audited annually with the report being submitted to the State Auditor's Office (SAO); however, the statute does not address submission noncompliance or the fact that many law enforcement agencies receive very little Equitable Sharing proceeds annually. | |
| * |
For the year ended December 31, 1998, only 57 percent (66/116) of prosecutors filed seizure reports with the DPS as required by Section 513.607 RSMo 1994. Most prosecutors in jurisdictions involved in a significant amount of seizure activity appropriately filed reports. |
|
| * |
During the two years ended December 31, 1997, the SAO received audit reports from seventy of ninety-four (75 percent) city and county governments with law enforcement agencies that received Equitable Sharing proceeds; however, it was not always clear if the Equitable Sharing proceeds were audited. Only twenty-seven of the ninety-four (28 percent) reports submitted clearly showed that the Equitable Sharing proceeds were audited; however, the reports represented 78 percent of the proceeds distributed to law enforcement agencies in these jurisdictions. Only three of eleven (27 percent) task forces which received Equitable Sharing proceeds during this period submitted audit reports which clearly showed the proceeds were audited. |
|