Norman City Council wants review of forfeiture funds

Feb. 3—The Norman City Council asked staff during a Thursday meeting to make sure the city's asset forfeiture fund now totaling $1.5 million is from criminal activity before they spend even a penny on public safety needs.

The council met Thursday because its regular study session was cancelled Tuesday following an error on the agenda.

According to Assistant City Attorney Rick Knighton, seizure and forfeiture are two processes. Officers seize property or cash and then the court accepts and holds the funds until the court finds if it is to be forfeited, he said.

The District Attorney must file a forfeiture action to claim that it should be forfeited according to state law or federal law. If the court agrees, the treasurer then cuts a check to the city to which proceeds are due, Knighton explained.

Ward 2's Lauren Schueler asked if the city had to spend the funds only on police department needs and how strict the definition for that expenditure must be. She suggested the funds could be used on mobile crisis units, which are teams of mental health professionals who respond to mental health calls otherwise received by police.

"I would argue that mental health and crisis is something our law enforcement are doing right now," Schueler said. "Is that not a nexus to law enforcement?"

Knighton said as a fiscal policy, staff would likely recommend the funds be spent on one-time expenditures and not recurring expenses such as programs. He speculated that while there might be some gray area in the law with regard to spending it outside policing needs, but "to be on the safe side," he would not likely recommend doing so.

Ward 7's Stephen Holman said his ongoing concern has been with the "integrity of the process" by which law enforcement seizes property from which it later profits. While numerous other states have passed laws to restrict or effectively ban the practice, Oklahoma has not, he said.

Several council members said they would be more comfortable using the funds if they could be sure the proceeds were from criminal convictions and not civil forfeiture, which does not require a criminal conviction.

Holman asked if all the funds were from illegal proceeds such as illicit drugs.

Assistant Police Chief Ricky Jackson said the funds in the city's account are all from "some kind of drug activity" that has occurred or been intercepted locally.

Holman said in a previous study session that a police official had indicated "most" of the funds were from drug or criminal activity.

Jackson said in the last 10-12 years "from the records I've seen, it's all been a drug nexus."

Knighton said there are instances when there isn't a criminal conviction such as when cash is seized and no one claims the money.

"What do you do with the money then?" he asked. "A lot of the forfeitures are the results of stops where an officer has probable cause to search and finds a bunch of cash in the trunk. They ask the driver, 'Whose is this' and they say they don't know. They've gotten those seized and put into an account."

If someone comes forward to claim the money, "they will have the opportunity to recover those funds," Knighton said. "But often, what happens is nobody comes back to reclaim those funds. It still has to go though the same process to get forfeited."

Mayor Larry Heikkila asked the council members if they would feel better if they could be sure all the money is from criminal proceeds and asked staff to see if that could be answered.

Jackson said the reports kept at the department for auditing purposes show the type of stop and the address, but was not sure it would answer that question. He suggested more information may be stored at the courthouse or with the district attorney's office.

Knighton said he could check with the treasurer for records as well.