U.S. Atty. Gen. Clarifies Use of Drug Assets : Law enforcement: Dick Thornburgh sees no bar to wide use of seized money and property to pay for Sheriff’s Department projects, including jail construction.

Frustrated by a long and sometimes contentious debate with Sheriff Brad Gates over how money and property seized in drug raids can be spent, Orange County supervisors have enlisted the aid of the nation’s top law enforcement officer to clarify some hazy legal issues.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Dick Thornburgh met with Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez last week in Washington and assured the supervisor that all types of law enforcement programs may be funded, even jail construction, according to Vasquez and Justice Department aides.

Board Chairman Don R. Roth called the attorney general’s comments to Vasquez “good news,” adding that they help dispel the impression that seized drug assets cannot be used for certain kinds of programs.

Some supervisors have complained that Gates cultivated that impression, occasionally leading them to believe that federal guidelines sharply limit the programs they can fund with seized assets. Gates denied that but said he has suggested that the assets be funneled back into drug enforcement activities.

“It’s up to them to do with as they please,” said Barry Stern, an associate deputy attorney general who also met with Vasquez during the supervisor’s Washington trip. “We limit it to law enforcement purposes, but beyond that, it’s their decision. They can buy a vehicle, buy firearms, build a jail, any of those things.”

The county is frantically searching for funds to build two new jails to relieve overcrowding, and the supervisors are simultaneously struggling with a projected $25-million deficit in the 1990-91 budget.

Gates, who sparred with the supervisors for months over the disposition of the 213-acre Rancho del Rio in South County as well other seized drug assets, said Tuesday that he would review any suggestions, but he also expressed reservations about using drug assets for jail construction.

Even if the ranch’s sale could help pay for a jail, operational costs would have to be borne by future budgets, Gates said. “Unless they want that jail to sit vacant, we better have an ability to fill it up with cooks and the other people that it takes to run it,” he added.

Vasquez stressed later that he is not advocating that the ranch proceeds or other drug assets be used to help fund a new jail. But he and agreed that the idea is worth investigating.

The sale of Rancho del Rio, which was seized in a 1985 drug raid, would only defray a fraction of a new jail’s cost. The Theo Lacy Jail expansion project, for instance, is estimated to cost $52 million, of which the county is paying $11 million. The 213-acre ranch is estimated to be worth about $2 million as is, though developers say it would be worth several times that with proper entitlements and road and water improvements.

Before they could even consider the financial implications of funding a jail through drug seizures, however, supervisors needed to learn how the money from seized drug assets can legally be used.

Vasquez said his continuing confusion led him to broach the topic with the attorney general on two occasions, first when the two of them traveled to Uruguay last year and most recently during an hourlong meeting in Washington.

During last week’s meeting, Thornburgh told Vasquez that the Justice Department would not object to seized assets’ being used toward construction of a new jail, the supervisor said.

“I asked the attorney general: ‘Could drug forfeiture monies be used for jail construction?’ ” Vasquez said. “The answer was yes.”

The result, Vasquez added, is that “the lack of clarity that once existed has been eliminated.”

How to use seized drug assets has been a longstanding point of contention between the supervisors and the sheriff, especially in regard to the creation of a DNA lab and disposal of the ranch.

Overarching that debate have been questions about the legal use of seized drug assets. A Jan. 19 letter from the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles warned the supervisors that selling the property and using money from the sale to offset current and future sheriff’s budgets would be a violation of the federal guidelines governing transfer of seized assets.

Rancho del Rio “was deeded to the county of Orange based on the representation that the property would be developed into a law enforcement training center,” U.S. Atty. Robert L. Brosio said in his letter. Selling the property and using the money to pay for existing programs would violate federal guidelines, he added.

That bolstered Gates’ case for building the training center, but Grace Benton, public affairs officer for the Los Angeles attorney general’s office, said Tuesday that the county would not be prohibited from using the money to build a jail.

“If they want to build a jail, they can do that,” she said. “If they’ve talked to the attorney general, then they know that. He’s the boss.”

Gates did not dispute the notion that proceeds from the ranch sale could be devoted to jail construction. He added, however, that he believes that seized drug assets are better used to fight drugs.

“We’ve tried to give special focus to the war on drugs, and that’s what we feel is the most appropriate use of the money,” Gates said. “We’re always open to look at any proposal that the board thinks is a responsible use of the funds in this department, but I think the people of this county want us to focus on drugs.”