Debate Set on Drug Asset Seizures : Legislation: Lawmakers to open hearings on renewing controversial forfeiture law.

State legislators will officially open debate today on one of the most controversial programs in the war on drugs--government seizures of property thought to be involved in drug crimes--as a powerful committee holds its first hearings.

Under the program, known as asset forfeiture, police and prosecutors may take houses, cash and other property when a judge agrees that there is probable cause that the property has facilitated drug deals or been purchased with the proceeds of drug sales. The government does not need to charge the owner with a crime in order to take the property.

The current state law took effect in 1989, and since then officers have picked up more than $130 million in suspect property. That money is spent on fighting drugs, which makes state forfeiture and its federal counterpart extremely popular with law enforcement agencies. But at the same time, the forfeiture laws have racked up a growing list of innocent victims--some of whom will testify today--and they vehemently complain that the drug seizure laws do not have enough safeguards.

The state law is set to expire at the end of next year, giving the current debate special urgency. Supporters hope that before this law expires, they can replace it with a stronger version so more property can be seized. Critics see this as an opportunity to draft new legislation that would protect innocent property owners.

“It’s just unfair what’s been done to us,” said F. E. (Bud) Miller, a retired California Highway Patrol officer who said he spent more than $50,000 fighting the government’s seizure of his bank accounts and other assets. Miller, who is expected to testify today, was never convicted of a crime.

Though acknowledging that some property has been seized from innocent citizens, proponents respond that those cases represent only a tiny fraction of the total.

“I believe in democracy as much as anyone,” said Alva Cooper, a Sacramento representative of several statewide law enforcement groups. But “this country has got to take a stand against drugs.”

Although more than two dozen witnesses are slated to testify today, the key players in the debate are sure to be two longtime politicians at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

One is Assemblyman John Burton, a cantankerous, liberal Democrat from the Bay Area who chairs the Assembly’s Committee on Public Safety and views forfeiture as an assault on property rights and civil liberties. The other is California Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, a conservative Long Beach Republican who was the principal sponsor of the federal forfeiture law and who pledges to fight doggedly for the renewal of a toughened version of California’s law.

Burton, a master of parliamentary maneuvering, will try to unite liberal skeptics of the program with conservatives dedicated to property rights. Lungren, meanwhile, will marshal the law enforcement community to try to force Burton into adopting a bill that strengthens the state’s powers.

For his part, Burton wants to prevent police from seizing property unless the owners have been convicted of drug crimes. Under the current law, property seizures are unrelated to any criminal charges.

In addition, some opponents want property owners to have access to government-appointed lawyers if they cannot afford their own and to force the government to pay the legal bill if it loses in court. All indigent criminal defendants are entitled to lawyers at government expense, but that right does not apply in forfeiture cases because they are civil cases, not criminal ones.

Lungren and some other forfeiture proponents object to those amendments, which they say would tie the hands of law enforcement and increase the cost to taxpayers. They note that the state law already is more restrictive than the federal legislation, enacted by Congress in the mid-1980s.

Instead, forfeiture supporters want to expand the state law so that more property could be seized and the money used to fight drug trafficking. Among other things, they would like to expand the conditions under which property could be seized--adding a provision that would allow police to confiscate property used for cultivating large amounts of marijuana, for instance.

Lining up with Lungren are police, prosecutors and other law enforcement advocates, several of whom are expected to testify today. Burton can count on the support of civil libertarians and defense lawyers, as well as some less obviously sympathetic organizations. The state restaurant association and some real estate groups are concerned about forfeiture’s implications for property rights, and though the California Bankers Assn. is officially neutral, its legislative counsel said in a letter to Burton that she finds some provisions of one forfeiture bill “very troubling.”

As the debate unfolds, timing will be key to both sides. The law’s expiration next year means that if a new law is not passed, the state will automatically revert to an earlier statute that was much more restrictive. If Burton remains the committee’s chairman next year and can stall the legislation, he may be able to bring pressure on the other side to accept amendments.

But Lungren has anticipated that move, and he too is trying to use the clock to his advantage. If the law expires, Lungren warns, law enforcement leaders will turn increasingly to the federal government to seize property, and that means fewer protections for property owners and less money to local law enforcement.

“I don’t think that’s what John wants,” Lungren said. “I don’t think that’s what anybody wants.”