Measure 53
Yes!
BY WW EDITORIAL STAFF | 503-243-2122
[April 30th, 2008]
Prozanski’s blunder. That’s what this measure is seeking to fix. Back in 2000, Floyd Prozanski, a Eugene lawyer and member of the Oregon House, wrote and pushed for Ballot Measure 3, a constitutional amendment that sought to still the long arm of the law from seizing property from criminal suspects before they were convicted, particularly those alleged to have been involved in the drug trade.
Now, seven years later, the state’s drug cops, prosecutors and criminal-defense lawyers are back with a constitutional measure referred by the Legislature that seeks to undo the unintended consequences of Ballot Measure 3. Prozanski’s measure, which WW opposed at the time, created unforeseen problems—like allowing convicted dealers to keep most of their drug money, delaying neglected animals from being adopted, and not letting local law enforcement share in the proceeds when they help the feds. Measure 53 fixes all that, and it has the support of the ACLU. It does make us wonder when Prozanski will be held accountable for his legal fumbles. He is a lawyer, after all.
Video of WW endorsement interview (thanks to Portland Community Media)
Comment on Measure 53 
Comment RSS feed
To correct the record, ACLU is not supporting Measure 53; we are officially neutral on it as well as on Measures 51 and 52. (See our website for details: www.aclu-or.org.)
Measure 3 was not a "blunder." Reform of civil forfeitures was badly needed and long overdue when M3 was approved in 2000. If Measure 53 is approved, ACLU will do what it can to make sure that the essential safeguards of Measure 3 are preserved. If Measure 53 is rejected, and law enforcement agencies continue refusing to do civil forfeitures because they can't keep the $$, the world will not end.
M53 is nothing but theft by cop. No need for you to be convicted of as much as jaywalking and they can steal everything you own.
It is a civic atrocity.
Vote NO on 53!
The "in favor" arguments are about cash next to drugs, and starving puppies, but measure 53 goes WAY beyond this by allowing law enforcement agencies to use the proceeds of forfeitures for their own benefit. Why does that need to be part of this?? Why not just have verbiage specific to cash next to drugs and starving puppies and leave it at that?
Vote NO!
This
VOTE NO ON 53 and correct it the next time. There are many gaping holes in this measure and all it takes is court interpretation for you to get screwed. Voters Beware, it's not just what is in print on this measure that you need to be aware of, but also what isn't mentioned.
With our personal freedoms being systematically stripped from us as U.S. citizens, the idea of giving the police force more power to confiscate personal property (Especially, before a ruling of guilt) is absurd. Freedom? Talk about guilty until proven innocent.
Vote NO! And WW what were you thinking on this one?
As a child welfare social worker who had dealt with the aftermath of drug busts, I say vote on on 53. The first case I had that dealth with this issue involved an undocumented young mom and her infant child, dude had gotten arrested and cops took both the bundle of money that was hidden next to the drugs AND the bundle of money that was in a purse in another room. That second bundle of money was the couples savings from their very real on paper jobs and was needed for rent, food and to send $ to family in Mexico.
advertisement
DON'T ENDORSE MEASURES THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!!
Clearly WW is misstating the position of the ACLU and you are supporting measures that you are not fully informed about.
For goodness sakes, do you homework before you endorse things like this!
As I understand it, for example we say yes to this thing. If an old lady on s.s. rented out a room to a person who used drugs unbeknows to her and a cop shows up and their was drug on him. All the money there, even her newly chashed s.s. check would and could be taken even though she is innosent. It is bad enough, let's not let them rob people before they are found guilty in a court of law. Accountabity.
Wow. I haven't read WW for about 6 months now, but after seeing the endorsement of Measure 53, I will certainly never trust this periodical again on anything.
Frankly, I want the name of the member of the "editorial staff" who wrote this piece. If the measure passes, (heck, even if it doesn't) I will be calling WW frequently and asking for this individual to be fired.
I am incredulous that Willamette Week stands in support of Measure 53, which, in the real world, will not only allow but motivate police to abuse the innocent for profit.
Do we citizens really trust the police and the prosecutors to such an extent that we imagine cash and hard assets will not motivate them to larceny? And do we also believe that Policemen will not be sheltered from punishment for such crimes by their Department, as well as by other officials in our Government who are, shall we say, equally vulnerable to the same temptations?
If that is our belief; if our trust is of such childlike proportions, we should take our little sleeping pills and look forward to "Officer Friendly's" next bedtime story!
Thanks for the recommendation. I'll be sure to vote AGAINST 53, now.