Little impact expected in Sonoma, Mendocino counties after feds' pivot on asset seizures (w/video)

Attorney General Eric Holder’s plan to end part of a controversial asset forfeiture program that critics say allows law enforcement to seize personal assets without proof that a crime has been committed will have little effect on the North Coast, where police agencies operate largely without federal government participation.

Holder announced last month he would no longer adopt cases from local police under the “equitable sharing” program, which provides for the return of up to 80 percent of the proceeds of any criminal enterprise to initiating agencies.

But because such seizures make up less than a tenth of the total amount of money confiscated each year in the region known for its cash-rich marijuana trade, Holder’s policy will have a negligible impact, prosecutors and attorneys said.

“It’s not going to make any difference at all,” said Brenda Grantland, a Mill Valley lawyer who specializes in asset forfeiture defense. “It’s really just window dressing.”

In fact, Holder has included “work-around” language in his policy that will, in effect, give local agencies the option of continuing to work with the feds, who give a larger share of proceeds than under state law, Grantland said.

The formation of multi-agency task forces in which local police officers are cross-deputized as federal agents could nullify any ban on federal adoption, Grantland said.

Just how many Sonoma County officers are in multi-agency units was unclear. Petaluma police have one officer who could continue to handle cases that fall under the federal asset forfeiture program, Lt. Dan Fish said.

Across the nation, asset forfeiture has surged since the advent of the war on drugs, jumping to $4 billion in 2013, according to published reports. The assets are largely tied to the drug trade but are often the product of other criminal enterprise.

In Sonoma County, local agencies took in nearly $8 million over the past five years, mostly in marijuana cases, prosecutors said.

The seizures are allowed under state and federal law when authorities suspect assets are “ill-gotten” profits. Neither requires proof of a crime for amounts over $25,000, but a conviction is necessary in state law to seize assets valued at less than $25,000.

Also under state law, seizing agencies keep up to 65 percent of the proceeds compared to up to 80 percent under federal law. The money must be spent on mandated crime-prevention programs.

Critics said the law gives officers an incentive to confiscate personal assets without justification.

At first, Holder’s Jan. 16 announcement appeared to address that criticism. He said the government would stop taking over cases originated by local agencies.

But he left open the door for federal agencies to continue handling their own cases. And his policy would have no effect on cases at the state and local level.

Sonoma County prosecutor Bud McMahon, who heads the district attorney’s asset for feiture program, agreed the attorney general’s policy would have little bearing on local seizures. He said his office could absorb cases that otherwise might go to the federal government, but those cases are rare.

Among the most noteworthy exceptions came last year, when sheriff’s deputies seized $1.4 million in cash and a trove of gold and silver coins during a Sebastopol house fire. The money was suspected of being the proceeds of marijuana sales.

But before anyone was charged with a crime, the case was handed off to federal authorities who confiscated the money.

It was unusual considering more than 90 percent of the seizure cases handled by sheriff’s detectives remain at the local level.

Sgt. Steve Gossett, who supervises the sheriff’s drug enforcement unit, said the $1.4 million in cash and precious metals was “a small percentage of the total” of seized assets. Many assets are later returned to owners, he said.

A spokesman for Mendocino County District Attorney David Eyster also estimated federal involvement at about 10 percent.

Criminal defense attorneys had different predictions about what would happen as a result of the new federal policy.

Sebastopol attorney Omar Figueroa said that could be a good thing for his clients because under state law, they have more rights. For one thing, he said, medical marijuana is a viable defense.

“The feds don’t care about medical marijuana,” Figueroa said. “In state court, if someone is a medical marijuana patient, the government can’t get a conviction. It’s good news for the medical cannabis community.”

Another Sebastopol attorney, Michael Shambrook, was less optimistic. He said Holder’s pronouncement is a shift in the mindset about assets connected to marijuana but will have little practical effect on asset seizures in the immediate future.

“I don’t expect anything big to play out,” he said.

You can reach Staff Writer Paul Payne at 568-5312 or paul.payne@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @ppayne.