Logo
ISSUE #34.25 • SPECIAL SECTION •

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

Marion Delgado  writes on Apr 30th, 2008 8:58am

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll be sure to vote AGAINST 53, now.

David Fidanque  writes on Apr 30th, 2008 2:57pm

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.

Neal Feldman  writes on May 1st, 2008 9:13am

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!

Glenn  writes on May 3rd, 2008 10:45pm

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

Randy  writes on May 6th, 2008 7:56am

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.

Brendan  writes on May 8th, 2008 10:00pm

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?

juliet  writes on May 12th, 2008 10:40am

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.

Jeff  writes on May 12th, 2008 11:10am

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!

juliet  writes on May 12th, 2008 2:36pm

sorry i meant no not "on on", didn't edit

Roebuck  writes on May 12th, 2008 5:43pm

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.

Utterly Appalled  writes on May 14th, 2008 1:33am

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.

Bard  writes on May 20th, 2008 5:54pm

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!

Comment on the "Measure 53" article
President
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | Democrat
U.S. Senate (D)
WW EDITORIAL STAFF
U.S. Senate (R)
WW EDITORIAL STAFF
U.S. House District 1 (D)
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | Downtown Portland, Northwest Oregon, Pacific Coast
U.S. House District 1 (R)
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | Downtown Portland, Northwest Oregon, Pacific Coast
U.S. House District 3
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | From East Portland out to Government Camp
U.S. House District 5 (D)
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | Clackamas, Marion and Polk counties and the Central Coast
U.S. House District 5 (R)
WW EDITORIAL STAFF
Oregon Secretary of State
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | Democrat
Oregon Attorney General
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | Democrat
Oregon Senate District 23
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | Northeast Portland
Oregon House District 38
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | Lake Oswego, Southwest Portland
Oregon House District 42
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | Inner Southeast Portland
Oregon House District 45
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | Northeast Portland
Oregon House District 49
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | East Multnomah County
Oregon House District 52 (D)
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | Parts of Clackamas and Multnomah counties and all of Hood River County
Oregon House District 52 (R)
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | Parts of Clackamas and Multnomah counties and all of Hood River County
Measure 51
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | Yes!
Measure 52
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | Yes!
Measure 53
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | Yes!
Portland Mayor
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | Nonpartisan
Portland City Commissioner, Position 1
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | Nonpartisan
Portland City Commissioner, Position 2
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | Nonpartisan
Portland City Commissioner, Position 4
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | Nonpartisan
Multnomah County Commissioner, District 1
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | A slice of inner Southeast Portland and everything west of the Willamette River
Multnomah County Commissioner, District 3
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | Most of inner Southeast and a slice of inner Northeast Portland
Multnomah County Commissioner, District 4
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | East Multnomah County
Metro District 2
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | Clackamas County and Southwest Portland
Metro District 6
WW EDITORIAL STAFF | Southeast and Southwest Portland
 

Ad

Ad

Ad


Recently in Willamette Week
December 31st 1969Washington State | The Canada of Oregon has it all—a Stonehenge replica, a longboarder's concrete wet dream and dark, damp underground lava caves. Vive les rocks.
December 31st 1969Oregon's Outer Edges | Crater Lake. Hell's Canyon. Wallowa and Steens mountain ranges. Hell, yeah.
December 31st 1969Central Oregon/High Desert | No rain, plenty of snow, obsidian flows and great local beer. The folks from the real eastside know how to unbend outside.
December 31st 1969Great Cascades/Columbia Gorge | With plenty of room to roam—and hot springs for your weary feet—it's the place to ramble and relax for the weekend.
December 31st 1969Willamette Valley | Monks, tracks, tubing and wine make the fertile strip a virile place to play.
December 31st 1969Stumptown | Tons of public parks, an extinct volcano and nude beach volleyball to keep you jolly. Get out and collect those merit badges, without leaving the city.
December 31st 1969The Coast | The beaches are public. You own them. Go play—hike in the old-growth forests.
December 31st 1969Cycle Tour 101: Your on-bike guide to Highway 101 | To ride the greatest bike route in Oregon, you need to get out of Portland.
December 31st 1969Doggin' It | What happens when a Portland running club jogs with pooches from the pound?
December 31st 1969Over the Edge | Sam Drevo will paddle yr ass.