Drug Asset Seizures Put on Hold Amid a Legal Morass : Law enforcement: County prosecutors won’t pursue new cases because of conflicting opinions on status of the state’s forfeiture law.

Ventura County prosecutors say they will not pursue any new attempts to seize the profits of drug dealers because of confusion stemming from the expiration of the state’s asset-forfeiture law in December.

That decision, announced to local law enforcement last month, follows the release of conflicting opinions on the law’s status from the state attorney general and the legislative counsel.

In a two-page letter sent to California district attorneys in December, Atty. Gen. Daniel E. Lungren said his office had determined that once the law expired in December, an earlier forfeiture law from December, 1988, would again take effect.

Senior Assistant Atty. Gen. Gary Schons likened the change to “climbing into a time machine and going back” to December, 1988.

But the attorney general’s interpretation clashes with an earlier finding by the state legislative counsel that there would be no law in effect after Dec. 31, 1993. That opinion said the 1988 law contained provisions that expired in 1989.

Ventura County Deputy Dist. Atty. Gregory W. Brose said neither of the conflicting interpretations is very clear.

“I can’t think of any case since I’ve been a prosecutor where there was this much uncertainty over the law,” said Brose, who oversees asset-forfeiture cases.

“Because we felt there was so much uncertainty, it was simply not prudent to continue to have further seizures of assets,” he said.

The matter is not likely to be clarified, he said, until the Legislature passes a new forfeiture law or until a case is challenged and decided by a state appellate court. If two appellate courts issue conflicting opinions, the matter could wind up before the state Supreme Court.

The most recent state asset-seizure law allowed law enforcement agencies to confiscate cash and property obtained from the sale of illegal drugs, or linked in other ways to drug activity. A drug conviction was not necessary for property to be seized.

In 1993, the Ventura County district attorney’s office handled 105 asset seizures involving $241,122 in cash. No figures were available on the value of cars, homes and other property seized, Brose said.

Although the Ventura County district attorney’s office will not file new forfeiture cases, prosecutors will continue to handle 34 cases now pending in Superior Court, Brose said.

The decision to stop filing forfeiture cases leaves Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael Bradbury in the minority among his counterparts throughout the state.

According to Schons, the only other district attorneys known to have stopped filing asset-seizure cases are in Kern and Sonoma counties. The other counties, he said, are following the attorney general’s opinion.

Local law enforcement officials said Bradbury’s decision leaves them without one of their most effective weapons against drug dealers.

“I’m disappointed,” said Oxnard Police Cmdr. Tom Cady. “When you catch some person out there who has got 20 or 30 $10 and $20 bills wadded in one pocket and a bunch of rock cocaine in another pocket, it’s very effective to take both their drugs and money and move to put them in prison.”

Until the legal issues are resolved, Oxnard police will continue to pursue asset seizures under federal law if the value of cash and property is worth more than $2,000, Cady said.

Other police agencies were unavailable for immediate comment.