PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT
Seized Property in Kansas: Determining Whether Laws Governing the Sale of Property Are Being Followed, and How the Proceeds Are Spent
A Report to the Legislative Post Audit Committee By the Legislative Division of Post Audit State of Kansas August 2000 Legislative Post Audit Committee Legislative Division of Post Audit
THE LEGISLATIVE POST Audit Committee and any other member of the Committee. Copies of its audit agency, the Legislative Division of Post all completed performance audits are available Audit, are the audit arm of Kansas government. from the Division's office. The programs and activities of State govern ment now cost about $8 billion a year. As legislators and administrators try increasingly to allocate tax dollars effectively and make govern ment work more efficiently, they need informa LEGISLATIVE POST AUDIT COMMITTEE tion to evaluate the work of governmental agen cies. The audit work performed by Legislative Senator Lana Oleen, Chair Post Audit helps provide that information. Senator Anthony Hensley We conduct our audit work in accor Senator Pat Ranson dance with applicable government auditing Senator Chris Steineger standards set forth by the U.S. General Ac Senator Ben Vidricksen counting Office. These standards pertain to the auditor's professional qualifications, the quality Representative Kenny Wilk, Vice-Chair of the audit work, and the characteristics of Representative Richard Alldritt professional and meaningful reports. The Representative John Ballou standards also have been endorsed by the Representative Lynn Jenkins American Institute of Certified Public Accoun Representative Ed McKechnie tants and adopted by the Legislative Post Audit Committee. The Legislative Post Audit Committee is a bipartisan committee comprising five sena LEGISLATIVE DIVISION OF POST AUDIT tors and five representatives. Of the Senate members, three are appointed by the President 800 SW Jackson of the Senate and two are appointed by the Suite 1200 Senate Minority Leader. Of the Representa Topeka,Kansas 66612-2212 tives, three are appointed by the Speaker of the Telephone (785) 296-3792 House and two are appointed by the Minority FAX (785) 296-4482 Leader. E-mail: [email protected] Audits are performed atthe direction of Website: the Legislative Post Audit Committee. Legisla http://skyways.lib.ks.us/ksleg/PAUD/homepage.html tors or committees should make their requests Barbara J. Hinton, Legislative Post Auditor for performance audits through the Chairman or
The Legislative Division of Post Audit supports full access to the services of State government for all citizens. Upon request, Legislative Post Audit can provide its audit reports in large print, audio, or other appropriate alternative format to accommodate persons with visual impairments. Persons with hearing or speech disabilities may reach us through the Kansas Relay Center at 1-800-766-3777. Our office hours are 8:00a.m. to 5:00p.m., Monday through Friday.
LEGISLATURE OF KANSAS LEGISLATWEDIVISIONOF POST AUDIT
MERCANTILE BANK TOWER 800 SOUTIIWEST JACKSON STREET, SUITE 1200 TOPEKA, KANSAS 66612-2212 TELEPHONE (785) 296-3792 FAX (785) 296-4482 E-MAIL: [email protected]
August 23, 2000
To: Members, Legislative Post Audit Committee
Senator Lana Oleen, Chair Representative Kenny Wilk, Vice-Chair Senator Anthony Hensley Representative Richard Alldritt Senator Pat Ranson Representative John Ballou Senator Chris Steineger Representative Lynn Jenkins Senator Ben Vidricksen Representative Ed McKechnie
This report contains the fmdings, conclusions, and recommendations from our completed performance audit, Seized Property in Kansas: Determining Whether Laws Governing the Sale ofProperty Are Being Followed, and How the Proceeds Are Spent.
The report also contains appendices showing a detailed list of the expendi tures we reviewed at 6 law enforcement agencies and a list of survey responses from local law enforcement agencies.
The report includes several recommendations for ensuring that State and federal forfeiture moneys are appropriately handled and accounted for, spent as the Legislature intended, and reported as required. In addition, the report recommends that the Legislative Post Audit Committee or other appropriate committee amend the Forfeiture Act to require State agencies to annually report their forfeiture activity under federal law, and to allow law enforcement agencies to share forfeiture proceeds in windfall situations with other non-law enforcement programs. We would be happy to discuss these recommendations or any other items in the report with any legislative committees, individual legislators, or other State officials.
Barbara J. ton Legislative Post Auditor
1975 SERHNG THE KANSAS LEGISLATURE WITH 2000 PERFORMANCE AUDITS FOR 25 YEARS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEGISLATIVE DIVISION OF POST AUDIT
Question 1: Are Law Enforcement Agencies Following the Applicable State Laws Related to Handling Forfeited Property?
All 6 law enforcement agencies we reviewed disposed . . . . . page 8 of forfeited property appropriately. All 6 retained some property for official use and 3 sold some property. Their actions complied with all applicable legal requirements. In addition, the 3 agencies that entered into settlement agreements with property owners complied with all statutory requirements related to those agree- ments.
All 6 agencies had established the required Special Law . . . . page 8 Enforcement Trust Fund, but we identified several problems with the handling of forfeiture moneys. In 4 agencies--the Kansas Highway Patrol, the Kansas City and Garden City Police Departments, and the Osage County Sheriff's Office-State forfei- ture money was commingled with money received from forfeitures completed under federal law and under the State drug tax law. The Osage County Sheriff's Office also improperly deposited federal and State forfeiture moneys directly into a local bank account, instead of into its law enforcement trust fund, as the law requires. In addition, the Thomas County Sheriff's Office distrib- uted seized money before the money actually had been forfeited. Finally, during the audit we identified problems with an evidence storage facility and forwarded our concerns to the appropriate authorities.
Question 1 Conclusion: page 12
Question 1 Recommendations: page 12
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 Question 2: How Is Money Generated from Forfeited Property Being Used?
In 1999, agencies spent State and federal forfeiture ... page 13 money mostly on computers, vehicles, and other law enforcement equipment. Computer equipment accounted for nearly half the expenditures we reviewed. All these expenditures appeared to be made in accordance with State and federal guide- lines. However, we weren't able to do a multi-year review of the agencies' budgets in the time allotted, so we can't say conclusively that they complied with the requirement not to use forfeiture money to supplant their normal budgets.
Although a recent forfeiture in Colby generated $3.7 million, forfeitures weren't a significant source of revenue for most Kansas Jaw enforcement agencies in 1999. In response to our survey of all county sheriff's offices and police departments in cities over 5,000 population, the 103 respondents said they received a total of about $1.6 million in 1999, or an average of about $37,000 for agencies who reported having some forfeiture activity that year.
Some of the forfeiture-related issues raised in a recent . .. page 15 series of newspaper articles could be a possible concern in Kansas. Law enforcement agencies in Kansas don't have the financial incentives to bypass State forfeiture Jaws because those agencies already get to keep forfeited money and property. How ever there maybe other incentives to bypass State law and Kansas may not provide as much protection for people who have their property seized as some other states do.
Most local law enforcement agencies aren't filing the . . . page 18 required annual report summarizing their forfeiture activities under the Kansas Act. State law requires agencies to file such reports annually with their respective governing bodies and to include the type and approximate value of forfeited property, the amount of proceeds from forfeited property, and how those pro- ceeds were spent. Of the 103 survey respondents, only 8 agen- cies submitted a report. The majority of the other respondents said they didn't file a report because they had no forfeitures or weren't aware of the requirement.
Question 2 Conclusion: page 19
Question 2 Recommendations: page 19
ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 APPENDIX A: Scope Statement page 20
APPENDIX 8: Table of Expenditures from Forfeiture Funds page 22
APPENDIX C: Summary of Survey Responses from Local Law page 27 Enforcement Agencies
APPENDIX D: Agency Responses . . . page 34
This audit was conducted by Anthony Perez, Gretchen Heasty, LeAnn Schmitt, and John Curran. Cindy Lash was the audit manager. If you need any additional information about the audit's findings, please contact Ms. Lash at the Division's offices. Our address is: Legislative Division of Post Audit, 800 SW Jackson Street, Suite 1200, Topeka, Kansas 66612. You also may call us at (785) 296-3792, or contact us via the Internet at [email protected].
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000
Seized Property in Kansas: Determining Whether Laws Governing the Sale of Property Are Being Followed, and How the Proceeds Are Spent
The Kansas Standard Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Act allows law enforcement agencies to seize money obtained from-or property used in-the commission of certain crimes. Seized property is held in the custody of law enforcement agencies until a judge determines whether the property should be forfeited to the agency or returned to its owner. Property forfeited to the agency can be sold, and the money used for law enforcement purposes.
Recently, legislators have expressed an interest in knowing whether law enforcement agencies are following all requirements related to the sale of property that has been forfeited, and how those agencies are using the money generated from the sales. This audit answers the following questions:
1. Are law enforcement agencies following the applicable laws related to the disposal and sale of seized property?
2. How is the money generated from property seizures being used?
To answer these questions, we reviewed the Forfeiture Act, interviewed State officials involved in administering the Act, and reviewed forfeiture records for calendar year 1999 at a sample of 6 law enforcement agencies: 2 State agencies-the Kansas Bureau of Investigation and the Highway Patrol-and 4 local law enforcement agencies-Garden City Police Department, Thomas County Sheriff's Office, Kansas City Police Department, and the Osage County Sheriff's Office. We selected the local law en forcement agencies because they reported a relatively high level of State forfeiture income and because they represented different areas of the State.
PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT 1 Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 At the agencies, we reviewed sales of forfeited property as well as retained property and settlement agreements. We checked deposits into the forfeiture fund and looked at a sample of items purchased with forfeiture revenues. Finally, we surveyed all county sheriffs offices, as well as police departments in cities with more than 5,000 people, to determine the number of sei zures they'd participated in during the last 3 years, and the amount of money forfeited.
Kansas law also specifically applies to the Department of Correc tions. We didn't review the Department in detail during the audit because it has received almost no money from forfeitures during the last 2 years.
A copy of the scope statement for this audit approved by the Legislative Post Audit Committee is included in Appendix A. For reporting purposes, we modified both audit questions slightly to reflect the fact that our testwork focused only on forfeiture activities. Given the questions we were asked to answer, we didn't look at the processes law enforcement agencies follow in seizing property.
In conducting this audit, we followed all applicable government auditing standards. Our findings begin on page 8, following a brief overview.
2 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 Overview of the State Forfeiture Act
The Kansas Standard Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Act (K.S.A. 60-4101 et seq.) gives law enforcement agencies in Kansas authority to seize money obtained from-or property used in-the commission of certain crimes. (For ease of reporting, in this audit we refer to both property and money as property.) Most seizures result from drug offenses, but the Act also applies to such crimes as cattle rustling, money laundering, and illegal gambling. It does not apply in the more common situations where, for example, law enforcement officers recover stolen property and sell it at a public sale if the rightful owner can't be identified.
Property may be seized under the Act during drug or gambling raids or other searches, and often occurs during traffic stops, when law enforcement officers observe behaviors or situations that cause them to suspect illegal drugs may be involved. The box on the next page gives two hypothetical examples of typical seizures and the subsequent forfeiture of property.
Law Enforcement Officers A seizure occurs when law enforcement officers take property Can Seize Property, but into their custody under the Act. A forfeiture occurs if a judge Only a Judge Can Order It subsequently awards ownership of the property to the law en To Be Forfeited forcement agency. The graphic on page 5 shows what happens once property is seized.
As the graph shows, once property is seized for forfeiture, the law enforcement agency must file a forfeiture claim in a Kansas district court. (This proceeding is filed in civil court and isn't part of the criminal case. In fact, a criminal conviction isn't required to file the forfeiture case.)
The law enforcement agency typically will ask either the local county/district attorney or the Attorney General to prosecute the case, although the agency could hire a private attorney with the approval of the local county/district attorney. Agencies also can
PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT 3 Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 ask federal prosecutors to handle the case, in a process called "federal adoption," which is discussed in more detail on page 6.
The graph also shows that the Examples of Forfeiture Situations law enforcement agency and property owner may agree to The following 2 examples are hypothetical situations that give rise to forfeiture proceedings. settle out of court. An agency may choose to settle a case to Case 1: A police officer stops a car for failing to signal a tum. When the officer checks the out-of-state plates he finds that the car belongs avoid the time and cost ofliti to someone other than the driver and the driver himself has a history of gation, or when the outcome of traffic and drug-related violations in several states. Although the driver of the car answers the officer's questions, the story doesn't quite make the case is uncertain. To help sense, and the officer asks to search the car. The driver consents to the search and the officer calls for assistance. There aren't any other ensure that all parties are pro police officers available, but a county sheriff's deputy responds and tected, out-of-court settlements assists with the situation. While searching the car, the officer and deputy find a handgun, a cellular phone, several thousand dollars in must be in writing, reviewed cash, and a scale. The driver of the car denies the property is his and and approved by the insists he borrowed the car from a friend. The officer seizes the property based on reasonable suspicion of drug activity. Forfeiture county/district attorney or the proceedings are started and the owner of the car is notified of the Attorney General, and reviewed forfeiture action. However, the owner doesn't respond or appear at the hearing and because there is no contest, the property is forfeited. The and approved by a judge. police department shares the cash with the sheriff's office because of its assistance in the case, the scale and cellular phone are destroyed, and the car is retained by the multi-county drug task force for use in By law, all seized property undercover operations. that's forfeited becomes the Case 2: A Kansas Highway Patrol Trooper stops a van for speeding. property of the law enforce The woman driving the van is wearing expensive clothes and jewelry. ment agency. If the court does She claims she is on her way back to Kansas City from a long vacation in New Mexico, but the officer doesn't see 'any luggage and the woman n't order the property forfeited, seems nervous. The officer asks to search the van and the woman it's returned to the owner. If the consents. The officer finds several thousand dollars in cash in pockets on the van seats and notices a powdery substance on the carpet in the property is awarded to the back of the van. He calls in a K-9 unit and the dog signals that the agency, officials can do the fol powder is indeed narcotics. The trooper arrests the woman for possession of illegal drugs, and the van and the cash are seized. Upon lowing: further inspection, more cash and packages of cocaine are found in the roof of the van, in the gas tank, and in secret compartments under the • keep the property for offi floor. After a forfeiture hearing, the Patrol retains the cash, with a portion going to the KBI for its assistance in testing the drugs. The van cial use or transfer property is sold through the State Surplus Property Program and the money is other than money to any deposited into the Patrol's State Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund. local, State, or federal agency
• destroy any illegal or controlled substances or contraband, or use it for investigative or training purposes
• sell, at a public sale, property that isn't required to be de stroyed and that isn't harmful to the public, and deposit the money into the agency's forfeiture fund.
4 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 This audit focused on what law enforcement agencies did with the property and money they received from forfeitures or settle ments, rather than on the seizure and forfeiture processes them selves.
State Seized and Forfeited Property Process
Law enforcement officers seize property or cash during a traffic stop, an undercover raid, or other search
Settlement agreement: Forfeiture claim filed the law enforcement in civil court by agency and the property city/county attorney or by owner agree to divide the Attorney General (KBI) property before court proceedings
Property or money is divided between law enforcement agency and the owner
Judgment in favor of the state: seized property is given to local enforcement agencies participating in the seizure
OR Cash is deposited into a special law enforcement trust fund and property is either kept for use, Judgment in favor of the owner: sold, or destroyed seized property is returned to owner
PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT 5 Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 Money obtained through forfeitures or settlements can be used for nearly any law enforcement purpose. All moneys that are seized and forfeited, as well as proceeds from the sale of forfeited property, must be deposited into a special law enforce ment trust fund. fu addition, the Act requires forfeiture money to be spent through the city, county, or State's normal expenditure process.
The Forfeiture Act doesn't allow money generated from forfeited property to be considered a source of revenue to meet normal operating expenses. That is, it can't be used to supplant other money normally provided to the law enforcement agency. ill stead, it's to be spent on "special, additional" law enforcement purposes, as the law enforcement agency head deems appropriate. Such expenditures could include vehicles for undercover drug operations, K-9 dogs, and additional computers, as well as paying overtime to officers, or purchasing and equipping a new facility.
Law Enforcement Kansas law enforcement agencies can receive property from Agencies Also forfeiture claims processed under federal law in 2 ways: May Receive Property From Forfeitures under • when a Kansas law enforcement agency helps a federal Other Federal or agency in a case that leads to the forfeiture ofproperty. State Laws Under federal equitable sharing guidelines, the Kansas law enforcement agency receives a share of the proceeds propor tionate to its involvement in the case.
• when a Kansas law enforcement agency asks a federal agency to process a forfeiture claim under federal law. This is known as federal adoption, and in such cases the federal agency returns 80% ofthe proceeds to the Kansas agency and keeps 20%. Local law enforcement officials might choose this option if the county/district attorney didn't want to file the case, if the case involved property in multiple jurisdictions, or if officials perceived an advantage to having a federal prosecu tor file the claim.
fu addition, law enforcement agencies can receive property that is forfeited under the State's drug tax laws (K.S.A. 79-5201 et seq.). fu these cases, the Department of Revenue forfeits the property, keeps 25%, and distributes the remainder of the proceeds to law enforcement agencies that assisted in the seizure. 6 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 Although law enforcement agencies can receive forfeited property under three different laws (the State and federal forfeiture acts, and the State drug tax law), this audit focused primarily on actions conducted under the State Forfeiture Act. However in Question 2, which looks at how agencies spent money generated from forfei tures, we looked at money generated under federal law as well.
PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT 7 Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 Question 1: Are Law Enforcement Agencies Following the Applicable State Laws Related to Handling Forfeited Property?
This question focused on how agencies handle money and prop erty after the court gives it to them, but before the money is spent. The 6 agencies we reviewed were following the applicable laws related to the sale of forfeited property and settlement agreements. However, we identified some compliance problems relating to the deposit of proceeds from forfeited property for 4 agencies. These and other findings are discussed in the sections that follow.
All 6 Agencies For the 6law enforcement agencies in our sample, we reviewed We Reviewed Disposed of the records relating to most of the seized property they'd received Forfeited Property through a forfeiture action or settlement agreement in calendar Appropriately year 1999. By law, agencies can either keep such property for official use, sell it, or destroy it.
As the table on the next page shows, none of the agencies de stroyed forfeited property that year, but all 6 retained some prop erty for official use, and 3 sold property.
We compared these agencies' actions against the requirements spelled out in law for disposing of forfeited property, and found that the agencies had complied with all requirements. We also noted the 3 agencies that had entered into settlement agreements with property owners during the year-the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Highway Patrol, and Garden City Police Depart ment-had complied with all statutory requirements related to such agreements.
All 6 Agencies The Kansas Forfeiture Act requires the proceeds from forfeited Had Established the property to be deposited into a Special Law Enforcement Trust Required Special Fund and spent through the city, county, or State's normal expen Law Enforcement diture process. In analyzing all State forfeiture deposits made into Trust Fund, but We our sample agencies' special trust funds in 1999, we found a Identified Several number of problems. Problems with the Handling ofForfeiture In 4 agencies, State forfeiture money was commingled with Moneys other forfeiture funds. Besides the money they get from
8 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 How Agencies We Reviewed Disposed of Forfeited Property During Calendar Year 1999
Agency Property Retained for Official Use Property Sold Property Destroyed
Kansas Bureau of 1 vehicle used for undercover . 0 0 Investigation operations
. 1 vehicle used to carry equipment . 3 vehicles sold to another to traffic check lanes state agency Kansas Highway 4 vehicles sold using the 0 Patrol . State Surplus Property Agency . 2 vehicles used for undercover Osage County operations 0 0 Sheriff's Office . 1 computer system that is used for general law enforcement purposes . 1 vehicle the Sheriff uses as his . 4 vehicles sold at a Sheriff's Thomas County patrol vehicle Office auction 0 Sheriff's Office . 1 van used for general purposes by the county
. 1 vehicle used for undercover Garden City Police operations 0 0 Department . 1 computer - use hasn't been designated yet
Kansas City Police . 4 vehicles used for undercover . 1 tractor trailer sold at an 0 Department operations auction
Source: Legislative Post Audit file review
property forfeited under the State Forfeiture Act, many law en forcement agencies also receive money from forfeitures com pleted under federal law and under the State drug tax law. Four of the agencies in our sample didn't account for these mon eys separately during the period we reviewed, as follows:
• The Kansas Highway Patrol didn't separately account for its State forfeiture and drug tax moneys. • The Kansas City Police Department and Osage County Sher iffs Office didn't separately account for their State, federal, and drug tax moneys. • The Garden City Police Department used to deposit drug tax moneys it received into its State forfeiture account then for a while the drug tax moneys were put into a miscellaneous subaccount. However, a separate sub-account for drug tax money has since been established. PERFORMANCE AUDITREPORT 9 Legislative Division ofPost Audit August2000 State law doesn't clearly require law enforcement agencies to separately account for moneys they get under the Forfeiture Act. However, it's important that they account for different sources of forfeited funds separately for the following reasons:
• If moneys received under the Forfeiture Act aren't accounted for separately, law enforcement agencies won't have the information they need to prepare the annual reports they're required to submit to their governing bodies.
• Federal guidelines require moneys generated by forfeitures conducted under federal law to be accounted for separately.
• Each type of money has slightly different restrictions on its use. There's no way to determine ifthose restrictions are being followed if the money isn't accounted for separately.
The Osage County Sheriff's Office improperly deposited federal and State forfeiture moneys directly into a local bank account. During 1999 and early 2000, the Office deposited $48,498 into its local bank account for expenses relating to under cover operations. State law permits this use of forfeiture money, but requires that those funds first be deposited into the agency's law enforcement trust fund.
Bypassing the county treasury increases the risk of loss or misuse of the money because all the safeguards and controls built into the normal process for spending public funds aren't used. The box on page 11 identifies some additional problems we found in review ing this account.
The Thomas County Sheriff's Office distributed money that had been seized before that money actually had been for feited. Under State law, county attorneys that handle forfeiture claims get 15% of the forfeited amount when the court proceed ings are over. However, we found that the Thomas County Sher iffs Office was paying the county attorney's office its share of the proceeds immediately after money was seized. Because the money doesn't belong to the county until the forfeiture proceeding is complete, there's a risk the county attorney's office could spend the money, then have to repay it if the judge ordered the seized property to be returned to the owner.
10 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 We identified accounting errors that two agencies made when depositing forfeiture money. The Kansas Bureau offuvestiga tion mistakenly deposited $11,976 into its State forfeiture fund that belonged in another fund. The Kansas City Police Depart ment erroneously recorded deposits totaling $76,400 twice. Both errors since have been corrected.
The Osage County Sheriff's Office Isn't Following Sound Practices for Handling Moneys Used for Undercover Operations
The Osage County Sheriff's Office keeps some moneys set aside for undercover operations, such as making drug buys. These moneys aren't kept in the custody of the County Treasurer's Office because they might be needed on short notice or after business hours. Because these moneys aren't subject to the normal County financial controls and procedures, it's important that they be carefully handled to limit the risk of loss or misuse.
Key aspects of a good system for handling these moneys would include establishing a set amount of moneys for undercover use, limiting the amount of and length of time cash can be out of the office, requiring full documentation of the use of these moneys, and having periodic, independent reconciliations of moneys set aside for undercover use.
To evaluate the practices of the Osage County Sheriff's Office, we compared those practices to undercover moneys practices recommended by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration and other sources. From that comparison, we found the following problems.
Osage County's Practices Recommended Practices
• Unused money isn't routinely checked 0 Funds shouldn't be held for more than 48 hours back in. Instead, undercover officers keep by an undercover officer-either the funds or the the money for future undercover activity. illegal items purchased should be returned to a For example, one officer withdrew $900 in supervising officer. October 1999, but didn't entirely spend it until May 2000.
• We found some cases where informants 0 Informants must always sign for the funds, and didn't sign for money and where only 1 2 officers should be present for the payment officer signed the receipt. and also sign a receipt.
• Undercover expenditures are reviewed 0 A supervisor should periodically review quarterly if federal grant money is documentation of how money is spent. Monthly involved. Otherwise, they are reviewed reviews are preferable. annually.
We also identified problems with an evidence storage facility. During this audit, we toured an evidence storage facility. Based on our observations, we concluded the facility wasn't properly secured and is at risk for loss or misuse of evidence. We've forwarded our concerns on to the appropriate authorities and have asked them to report back to us when the problem is corrected.
PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT 11 Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 CONCLUSION Law enforcement agencies appear to be meeting the legal require ments for handling forfeited property. However, State law is vague when it comes to how the money is to be accounted for. Clearer guidance on the need to account for these moneys sepa rately can reduce the risk that agencies spend restricted moneys inappropriately. In addition, changes are needed at some local law enforcement agencies to minimize the risk of loss or misuse of money.
RECOMMENDATIONS 1. To help ensure that State and local agencies are complying with the reporting requirements in the Forfeiture Act, the Legislative Post Audit Committee or another appropriate committee should introduce legislation to amend the Act and the drug tax laws to specifically require separate accounting for money resulting from seizures under each law if the money is deposited into the same fund.
2. To ensure that the risk ofloss or misuse of undercover ex pense money is minimized, the Osage County Sheriffs Of fice should do the following:
a. Deposit all current and future forfeiture moneys into its special law enforcement trust fund. That money then should be handled using the county's normal expendi ture process.
b Review and modify internal procedures for handling informant expenses to correct the types of control weaknesses identified on page 11.
3. To ensure that seized moneys aren't spent until they are forfeited or the case has been settled, the Thomas County Sheriffs Office shouldn't use these funds to pay attorney fees or other expenses until the forfeiture is complete.
12 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 Question 2: How Is Money Generated from Forfeited Property Being Used?
The 6 agencies we looked at in detail spent forfeiture money on a variety of things, including computer equipment, vehicles, and other law enforcement equipment. All the expenditures we reviewed appeared to be allowable under State and federal laws. However, the guidelines for using State and federal forfeiture money are vague and give law enforcement agencies a lot of discretion to decide how the money is spent. According to our survey of law enforcement agencies across the State, forfeiture money isn't a significant source of revenue for most law enforce ment agencies. These and other fmdings are discussed in the sections that follow.
In 1999, Agencies Spent Under both State and federal laws, forfeiture money must be State and Federal used for law enforcement purposes and can't be considered in Forfeiture Money Mostly planning agencies' budgets. However, State laws are slightly on Computers, Vehicles, more restrictive: and Other Law Enforce- ment Equipment • Money generated from forfeitures under federal law can be used for almost any law enforcement purpose, as long as it isn't used to replace existing budget resources.
• State law requires the items purchased to be "additional and special." However, the terms additional and special aren't defined, which leaves the decision as to what is additional and special to the discretion of each law enforcement agency.
A recent series of articles in the Kansas City Star highlighted the issues surrounding the use of forfeiture money in Missouri and other states, such as the potential conflict of interest created when money goes back to the law enforcement agency. The profile on page 15 summarizes the issues addressed in the arti cles, and how they relate to Kansas.
The table on the next page shows the deposits made into the forfeiture fund and the amounts spent out of that fund for the 6 agencies in our sample.
PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT 13 Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 Total Deposits and Expenditures for State and Federal Forfeiture Funds For 6 Sample Agencies, 1999
Revenue (a)
State Federal State Federal
KBI $20,200 $96,193 $85,186 $137,425
Highway $81,558 $880,864 $32,362 $1,513,249 Patrol
Thomas Co. $67,643 $9,301 $77,665 $10,348
Garden City $45,786 $23,202 $39,153 $26,672
Osage Co. $59,325 $4,903 $42,642(b)
Kansas City $120,396 $89,543 $335,434(b)
(a) Money deposited in forfeiture funds doesn't have to be spent within a given time, so the fund may build over time. Therefore, money an agency spent in 1999 could have been revenue from previous years.
(b) Because the Osage County Sheriff's Office and Kansas City Police Department don't separately account for their State and federal forfeiture moneys, we weren't able to determine whether expenditures were made from State or federal revenues.
Source: Legislative Post Audit file review
To determine how these agencies spent the forfeited moneys they received, we reviewed the 10 highest State and federal expendi tures for each agency we visited.
Computer equipment accounted for nearly haH the expendi tures we reviewed. As the table on page 16 shows, the agencies spent most of their money on computers, vehicles, and other law enforcement equipment.
All the expenditures we reviewed appeared to be allowable under State and federal guidelines. However, we can't conclusively say agencies weren't using forfeiture money to supplant their normal budget, because we couldn't do a multi-year review of their budgets within the timeframe for this audit. A list of all the expenditures we reviewed at each agency is included in Appendix B.
14 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 A Summary of Forfeiture-Related Issues Raised in the Kansas City Star, and Their Applicability to Kansas
This audit focused on handling and spending forfeiture money. However, a number of other issues relating to forfeited property were the topic of a series of articles reported earlier in 2000 in the Kansas City Star. In general, the articles focused on whether law enforcement agencies in some states were circumventing state laws requiring money to be used for purposes other than law enforcement. They also focused on whether there were adequate protections for people whose property had been seized. We didn't analyze these issues in detail because they were beyond the scope of the audit. However, the accompanying table highlights the issues and how they apply to Kansas. CIRCUMVENTION OF STATE LAW
STATE LAW
Law Enforcement Agencies Have Financial Incentives to ~ Bypass State Forfeiture Laws Not a Concern in Kansas
For example, the article noted that Nebraska law requires mon Kansas law allows law enforcement agencies to keep most the eys generated through forfeitures handled under state law to be forfeiture money they generate. The agency only has to pay the split between law enforcement and education. To avoid this attorney cost, which is 15% of the amount of the forfeiture in an requirement, the Nebraska State Patrol was asking federal uncontested case and 20% in a contested case. Thus, there's no agencies to handle forfeiture claims under federal law. That law financial incentive to use the federal system in Kansas. In fact, in allows the federal agency to keep 20% of the amount forfeited uncontested cases the law enforcement agencies actually have for handling the case; the rest would be sent back to the Patrol. an incentive to stick with the State system, because they'll get to keep 85%.
Other Incentives Exist to Bypass State Laws A Possible Concern in Kansas
The articles noted some state laws prohibit certain actions that Such incentives can exist in Kansas. The articles cited an exam federal law doesn't. For example, like Kansas, some states ple in Kansas where the owner of a home on a farm where mari prohibit the forfeiture of a home, but federal law doesn't. juana was being grown was told to consider that the Bureau would likely file a claim for the house in federal court unless the case was settled for $63,000. This case wasn't settled and the Bureau plans to seek federal adoption of the claim. There's Too Little Oversight of Forfeiture Claims Being ~ Transferred to Federal Agencies A Possible Concern in Kansas
For example, the articles noted that some states require a court Kansas law also doesn't require law enforcement agencies to get order from a state court before forfeiture cases can be trans a judge's approval to transfer a forfeiture case to the federal ferred to the federal system. system.
ADEQUATE PROTECTIONS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE THEIR PROPERTY SEIZED
Agencies That Get to Keep Forfeiture Moneys Have an Inherent Conflict of Interest A Possible Concern in Kansas
The articles suggested that's because agencies profit directly This could be an area of concern in Kansas because State law from this law enforcement action, which could motivate them to allows law enforcement agencies to keep forfeited moneys. become overzealous in their quest for forfeiture money, leading to illegal search and seizure.
Convictions Aren't Always Required for Forfeitures A Possible Concern in Kansas
Some states require a criminal conviction before a forfeiture Kansas law doesn't require a conviction, or even that a person be claim can be filed; others don't. The articles noted that requiring charged with the illegal activity that gave rise to the forfeiture. a conviction provides greater protection to people whose prop erty has been seized. That's because they'd have to have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for the underlying crime before property could be forfeited.
PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT 15 Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 How 6 Law Enforcement Agencies Spent Forfeiture Money in Calendar Year 1999
Computer Agency Equipment Total
Notes a Includes expenditures related to drug interdiction, such as K-9 dogs, salaries for interdiction officers, and specialized equipment used by undercover officers. Doesn't include vehicles or planes.
b Includes such things as paying attorney fees, sharing proceeds with other law enforcement agencies, and repairing seized and forfeited vehicles.
c Includes such things as a donation to a criminal justice center, a membership fee to a law enforcement accreditation agency, and hotel accommodations for a specialized training school.
Source: Legislative Post Audit file review
Although a recent seizure in Colby generated $3.7 million in forfeited money, forfeitures weren't a significant source of revenue for most Kansas law enforcement agencies in 1999. We surveyed all county sheriff offices, as well as police depart ments in cities with populations over 5,000, to find out how many seizures were conducted under both State and federal laws, and how much money forfeitures generated for each of the past 3 calendar years. We received 103 responses out of 157 surveys mailed, for a response rate of 66%. The table on page 17 shows the results of our survey. Appendix C contains the results of the survey for each respondent.
As the table shows, the survey respondents reported receiving about $1.6 million in 1999, or an average of about $37,000 (from forfeitures under both State and federal laws) for the 44 agencies
16 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 who reported having some forfeiture activity in 1999. Most respondents received no forfeiture money under either State or federal law in 1999. However, as explained in the profile box on page 18, a seizure in Colby that resulted in a forfeiture of more than $3.7 million will cause a 1 year spike in forfeiture revenues for several law enforcement agencies in 2000.
Number of Seizures and Proceeds from Forfeited Property for 1997-1999, from 103 Survey Respondents
Agencies per Seizures Agencies Seizures Agencies Agency
355 34 10 386 33 12 446 41 11
70 9 8 118 9 13 119 14 9
Agencies per Agencies Agencies per Agency Agency
37 $29,708 $831,937 35 $23,770 $1,079,245 40 $26,981
10 $32,538 $503,104 12 $41,925 $553,706 16 $34,607
* Total #of agencies is a unique number-the number of agencies with any seizures or amounts of forfeitures, either State or federal.
Source: Legislative Post Audit Survey of Local Law Enforcement Agencies
PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT 17 Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 Most Local Law State law requires law enforcement agencies to file such reports Enforcement Agencies each year with their respective governing bodies. Those reports Aren't Filing the Required are supposed to include the following: Annual Report Summarizing Their • the type and approximate value of forfeited property re Forfeiture Activities ceived, Under the Kansas Act • the amount of any forfeiture proceeds received, and • how any of the forfeiture proceeds were spent.
During this audit, we asked the 157locallaw enforcement agen cies we surveyed to attach a copy of the report they'd submitted to their governing bodies in 1999. Of the 103 agencies that responded, only 8 attached a copy of the report. Of the 95 who didn't, nearly half said they hadn't seized any money or property in 1999, but another third said they weren't aware of the require ment to file a report.
$3.7 Million Was Seized and Forfeited Recently in Colby
On January 14, 2000, a Colby police officer pulled over a car that had made an illegal turn coming out of a gas station. When the officer asked the 2 men in the car where they were going (the car was a rental with Michigan plates), they said they were returning from a ski trip. Seeing no ski equipment, the officer became suspicious and asked to search the car. The officer found what he thought were packages of marijuana in the car's trunk and asked the two men to get out of the car. As the passenger was getting out of the car, he shot and killed himself.
What the officer thought was marijuana was actually cash. A search of the vehicle turned up 6 boxes and a trash bag full of cash, totaling more than $3.7 million. The driver didn't claim ownership of the money, and the Colby Police Department-with help from the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, the Kansas Attorney General's Office, and the Thomas County Attorney-began forfeiture proceedings. The passenger's surviving relatives and attorney claimed a right to some of the money and settled for just over $100,000. The Colby Police Department received more than $3.7 million, and has shared the proceeds with other law enforcement agencies because of their help with the investigation and legal proceedings. The following is a summary of how the money has been divided.
Colby Police Department $2,072,987 KBI/Attorney General's Office 753,814 Thomas County Sheriff's Office 376,907 Thomas County Attorney 188,453 Kansas Highway Patrol 188,453 DEA Drug Task Force: Garden City 94,227 DEA Drug Task Force: Finney County 94,227
Total $3,769,068
Federal law allows agencies that seize large amounts of cash (defined as more than 25% of their annual budget) to share the money with other government entities. However, because the case in Colby was handled under State forfeiture law, the police department can't share the money with any other agencies besides those directly involved in the case.
Other respondents noted that the fund was audited annually, or that the county treasurer reports on fund balances. These results suggest the reporting requirement is not widely known or under stood.
18 PERFORMANCE AUDITREPORT Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 CONCLUSION Most law enforcement agencies don't receive a lot of money from forfeited property, although a few do. Regardless of the amount, the money they get allows them to buy a variety of items to enhance their programs. All the purchases from forfeiture money we reviewed seemed to be in compliance with State law. However, the legal requirements for what the money can be used for are vague at the State level and could allow agencies to spend the money in ways the Legislature may not have intended.
RECOMMENDATIONS 1. If, upon reviewing this report, members of the Legislative Post Audit Committee or other legislative committees think forfei ture money isn't being spent the way they intended, they should introduce legislation to amend that portion of the Kansas Forfeiture Act dealing with how law enforcement agencies can spend forfeiture money.
2. To ensure the Legislature receives the entire scope of State agency forfeiture activity, the Legislative Post Audit Commit tee or another appropriate committee should introduce legisla tion to amend the Forfeiture Act to require State agencies to annually report their forfeiture activity under both State and federal laws to the Legislature. Currently, the Act only ad dresses forfeitures handled under State law.
3. To allow entire communities to benefit from "windfall" forfei tures like the one in Colby, the Legislative Post Audit Com mittee or another appropriate committee should consider amending the Forfeiture Act to allow sharing similar to that allowed under federal law. Under federal law, when a forfei ture generates funds representing more than 25% of the law enforcemen! agency's annual budget, federal guidelines allow any amount over the 25% level to be transferred to programs to support drug abuse treatment, drug and crime prevention and education, housing, job-skills programs, or other community-based programs.
4. To help ensure that State and local agencies are complying with the reporting requirements in the Forfeiture Act, the Attorney General, as the State's chieflaw enforcement officer, should remind local law enforcement agencies about this reporting requirement and encourage them to complete the required reports.
PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT 19 Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 APPENDIX A
Scope Statement
This appendix contains the scope statement approved by the Legislative Post Audit Committee for this audit on April25, 2000. The audit was requested by Representative Ed McKechnie.
20 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 SCOPE STATEMENT
Seized Property in Kansas: Determining Whether Laws Governing the Sale of Property Are Being Followed, and How the Proceeds Are Spent?
The Kansas Standard Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Act allows law enforcement agencies to seize property used in or acquired in connection with certain illegal activities. All such seizures of property are subject to legal proceedings and review by the district court. After final disposition by the court to ensure that all legal claims to the property have been satisfied, the title to the property vests with the law enforcement agency that seized the property.
When property is forfeited under the Act, the law enforcement agency may:
keep the property for official use or transfer the property to any local, State, or federal agency destroy any illegal or controlled substances or contraband, or use it for investigative or training purposes sell property which is not required to be destroyed and which is not harmful to the public at public sale, and deposit the money into the agency's forfeiture fund.
The law says that moneys generated from the sale of seized property can't be considered a source of revenue to meet normal operating expenses. Those moneys are to be expended through the normal appropriations process for such special or additional law enforcement purposes as the law enforcement agency head deems appropriate. Each year, the Department of Corrections, the Kansas Bureau oflnvestigation, and the Highway Patrol is supposed to file a report on seized property with the Legislature showing the balance in their special asset forfeiture funds and the deposits and expenditures for the previous 12-month period. Each local law enforcement agency is required to file the same type of report with the authority that oversees its budget.
Recently, legislators have expressed an interest in knowing whether law enforcement agencies are following all requirements related to the sale of seized property and how they are using the money generated from the sales. A performance audit of this topic would answer the following questions:
1. Are law enforcement agencies following the applicable laws related to the disposal and sale of seized property? To answer this question, we'd review the applicable statutes related to the disposal and sale ofseized property. For a sample ofproperty sales we'd check for such things as whether all of the required documents from the court were obtained, whether required notices of sale were posted or provided to the appropriate parties, and the like. We'd also check to see what the agencies' policies were on the storage and disposal of illegal substances, and whether those policies were being followed
2. How is the money generated from property seizures being used? To answer this question, we'd review annual reports submitted by State law enforcement agencies to the Legislature. We'd interview officials at those agencies and review records to determine at a reasonable level of detail what those moneys were spent for. We'd also conduct similar testwork for a small sample of local law enforcement agencies. We'd conduct additional work as needed.
Estimated time to complete: 6-8 weeks. (Staff note: To date, the Department of Corrections hasn't prepared any ofthe annual reports required to be filed with the Legislature. A review ofthe report submitted by the KBI shows expenditures in 7 categories, travel, contractual services, commodities, equipment, professional supplies, office supplies, and repairs.)
PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT 21 Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 APPENDIXB
Table of Expenditures from Forfeiture Funds
This appendix contains a table detailing the sample ofboth State and federal forfeiture fund expenditures we reviewed at the Kansas Bureau offuvestigation, the Kansas Highway Patrol, the Kansas City Police Department, the Garden City Police Department, Thomas County Sheriffs Office, and the Osage County Sheriffs Office. The table contains a brief description of the item purchased and the price.
22 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 ~1:'-<'"o ;:: ~ t"i ~ r.;· ~ Kansas Bureau of Investigation Kansas Highway Patrol V:l~~
0,;~::::-. 0~ o"' Item Amount Item Amount Ot;:, STATE :;:· ~ Statewide criminal database that can be accessed by local police (biggest $20,160 Attorney fees for a forfeiture settlement agreement $20,000 ~: Q portion paid with federal grant money) §l ~ ~§ Criminal intelligence server used by law enforcement agencies 5,205 Attorney fees for forfeiture proceeding 8,016
~~ 12 analyst's notebooks and software used for crime analysis 4,400 Attorney fees for forfeiture proceeding 1,080
Gave 15% of proceeds for a forfeited vehicle to a local law enforcement ~~ Machine that records cellular phone numbers to be used in a homicide case 2,630 1,073 ~~...., agency Computer upgrade for an agenfs computer 1,691 Repairs to a forfeited vehicle used by the Garden City taskforce 1,020 ' Transfer of KBI staff by the Dept. Of Administration's central aircraft to a 1,687 Court ordered amount to be returned to defendant per settlement agreement 1,000, hostage situation in Jetmore, Ks.
Heavy duty storage shelves for the Great Bend lab 1,169 Tow costs for a seized vehicle 87
Radio communication equipment for tactical team 1,090 Currency counting charge in a forfeiture case 45
Digital camera and battery used for crime scenes 950 Replacement of a gas tank on a seized vehicle after a drug search 42
Specialized crime scene fingerprint equipment 420 (Only 9 State expenditures)
------FEDERAL
Equipment for portable Statewide radio systems for westem Kansas agents $29,214 Cessna turbo 206 airplane used for surveillance and transportation $294,880
Dispatch hardware and software for the Salina Central Dispatch Facility (will Equipment for portable statewide radio systems for westem Kansas agents 22,912 134,129 also be used for Capitol Police and Tum pike Patrol)
Computer software and hardware for the Criminal Justice Information System- Undercover vehicle radios used with a Statewide communications system 22,295 a Statewide computer network, which provides access to State and federal 115,790 criminal and other relevant law enforcement information
Dispatch hardware and software for the Salina Central Dispatch Facility (will Buy funds for undercover drug operations 20,400 111,928 also be used for Capitol Police and Turnpike Patrol)
Single source contract to provide equipment, maintenance, and support Disposal of meth lab chemicals stored in the lab 9,276 89,935 services for the Criminal Justice Information System
Repair of an agenfs vehicle 2,585 3 in-car video systems used to monitor officers and assist in prosecutions 85,465
Hanger rental for a forfeited airplane 1,938 16 computer workstations for the Salina Central Dispatch Facility 77,088
Special disguised antennas for undercover vehicles 1,759 10 laptop computers 34,010 N w Specialized ammunition and a gas gun used by the tactical team 1,681 Replacement of radar units 29,512
Rental of storage space for seized property 1,094 5 laptop computers 15,780
----- N ~ Kansas City Kansas Police Dept.* Garden City Police Dept. Thomas County Sheriffs Office Osage County Sheriffs Dept.**
. Item Amount Item Amount Item Amount
Donation to a local Vehicle used to transport New uniforms for the office I $18,991 New transmitter for an K-9s community college for a $3,100 after a statute change $9,052 $1,6991 firearms training program about uniform color undercover wire
Investigator salary for a Vehicle used by the VICe & Vehicle used for Transfer of auction Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Narcotics Unit for 14,805 investigations 2,361' proceeds for non-forfeited 3,060 Task Force (partially 1,611 surveillance property to the County reimbursed by a federal grant)
Investigator salary for a I Vehicle used by the Vice & Body suit used by a Donation to "Hooked On Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Narcotics Unit for 14,805 human decoy during K-9 1,210 Fishing" drug education 3,000 Task Force (partially 1,611 surveillance training program reimbursed by a federal i grant)
3 day/night scopes used by Transfer of auction K-9 life insurance for 2 special operations for 13,178 Purchased a dog for K-9 dogs 900 proceeds for non-forfeited 2,790 1,200 surveillance property to the County unit
Remote control door Installation of an alarm Salaries for the 700 coloring books used 6,959 opening system to release system at the firing range 640 investigator and drug 2,420 for drug education in 508 K-9dog interdiction officers schools
! Shotguns used by the Vice Uniform accessories for Salaries for the Matchbook size recorder & Narcotics Unit while 6,262 the Special Enforcement 591 investigator and drug 1,790 465 serving search warrants Team bike patrol interdiction officers for undercover work I Purchase of a resigned Epson projector used Body work on forfeited Bulk packages of crayons 4,875 primarily for training officer'.s weapon to use for 350 vehicle that was tom apart 1,2251 used for drug education in 360 law enforcement when searched schools N~ I
~· ~ Cellular phone bill for 1 iS" Sealing plastic bags to Cell phone expense for month (phone used for Drunk goggle glasses used ~· ~0 4,752 259 450 284 II> store narcotics evidence Investigation Division drug interdiction or for for drug education t:l troopers in the area) ~· (J ' r;;· t>l c;·::... Reaccreditation fees for I the Commission on Tires for a vehicle used by 2 load bearing vests for 4,700 K-9 officer uniforms ::... ~ § Accreditation for Law 218 drug interdiction & 232 undercover officers to use ~~~ investigator officers over clothes 2701 ~ ~ ~ Enforcement Agencies sa ...... ~ ! ~y::.,.'"ti I Computer used to track Pager service for the Replacement of service 8§.~ Donation for drug wires used during <:::>:::::'-3 narcotics evidence as it's 4,608 Special Enforcement Team 216 200 215 confiscated (2 months) education at a school undercover drug operations
-·-- -· ~t-<'l:l FEDERAL Item Amount Item Amount Item Amount Item Amount ;: ~ t-il ~ !:;• ~ cash used for an ~ts'~ Materials to build a control 2 radios systems used by $4,500 undercover drug operation $8,500 $3,742 t-.>:::l-. ~ tower for the firing range the Sheriff and a Deputy :§5~ (later returned to fund) Cb ~· ~ Surveillance transmitters Money paid to the Colby !ii: ~ used by the Vice & 2 bullet proof vests for the ~ 4,265 3,001 Police Dept. for a federal 2,713 g Narcotics Unit to monitor Special Enforcement Team forfeiture case .Q,§ drug buys I ~~ Computer software used ' Laptop computer used by K-9 officer training for a 3,541 3,000 as part of a record keeping 1,305 ~~ the Vice & Narcotics Unit new dog and offacer ~~ system '-3
Vehicle used for narcotics New bikes and equipment 6 movable beds to use for 3,304 2,744 1,154 investigations for the bike patrol excess inmates in the jail
Ammunition for specialized Money paid to the Colby K-9 officer training for a training for the Vice & 3,020 2,352 Police Dept. for a federal 813 new dog and officer Narcotics Unit forfeiture case
Laptop computer used for Specialized guns and Digital scale used to weigh search warrants and 2,995 accessories for the Special 1,855 583 drugs hostage situations Enforcement Team
Scanner antenna for the Software & scanner used Special pants and shirts for Sheritrs vehicle to use with to track narcotics evidence 2,892 the Special Enforcement 916 39 the previously listed new as irs confiscated Team radio system
Sent a lieutenant to a Riot helmets and other 3-month FBI national 2,490 equipment for the Special 534 training academy Enforcement Team
Installation of flags and Uniforms for the Special poles at the Department's 2,116 373 Enforcement Team firing range
Hotel accommodations for Specialized training 2 bomb technicians to 2,013 software used by K-9 318 attend the FBI Hazardous officers Device School ----
*Kansas City combines its **Osage County had no State and federal forfeiture federal forfeiture deposits N money, so we chose 1 into its forfeiture trust fund Vl sample of 20. for calendar year 1999. 26 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 APPENDIXC
Summary of Survey Responses From Local Law Enforcement Agencies
We surveyed 157locallaw enforcement agencies in the State. We surveyed all county sheriff's offices (1 05) and police departments in cities with a population of more than 5,000 (52). We received responses from 103 agencies, for a response rate of 66%. Of the returned surveys, 36 were from local police departments and 67 were from county sheriff's offices.
The survey questions were designed to obtain information about the number of seizures each agency had conducted and the amount of revenue each agency had received under the Kansas Standard Asset and Forfeiture Act and the Federal Equitable Sharing Program, for calendar years 1997-1999. This appendix contains an alphabetical listing of the agencies that responded to our survey with the number of seizures and amount of State and federal forfeitures each had for 1997-1999, as well as noting whether or not each agency filed the required report with their governing body.
PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT 27 Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 N 00
N 0 0 0 N 0 0 0
N 0 0 0
N 0 $0 0 $0 0 N N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I N/A I N 0 $0 0 $0 0
2 $0 N 0 1 $0 1 0 $0 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 0 I $0 I 0 $0 N 1 $0 0 $0 0 2 1 $189 1 1 $1.000 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 II Chase County II ~~I Sheriff's Deoartment 0 I $0 I 0 I $0 I 0 I $0 I N 0 $0 0 $0 0 ~ ~ 1;;· a I II Sheriff II 0 I $0 I 0 I $0 I 0 I $0 I N I 0 I $0 I 0 I $0 I 0 iS"~ ~· y 6 I $7.193 4 I $6~:66 I 12 I$2:·~04! 17 ~~I 0 $0 0 0 N 0 -.:....~- t>l I I § ~ :....
0 $0 0 $0 0
1 $59,263 0 $0 21 $266 N 0 $0 0 $0 0
0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 N 13 $16,471 9 $10,776 15 I $9,774
0 $0 1 $1,800 N NA NA NA NA NJ I
NA N NA NA NA NA NA
N 0 $0 0 $0 0
0 $0 N
0 $0 N
unknown $18.882 N N I I '""ol u ;::,nemrs umce II u I 'bU I u I 'bi.O~~ I 0 t-""~a ~ ~ • 2~ '"-31 u nP.n::~rtmP.nt II 7 I $7.866 I 3 I $1.763 I 9 ~t-<'"tl ~ i· ~ t-:1 S" ~ Liberal Police ;:, ;::;-, ~ :§;;;; ~ Department 0 $0 0 $0 9 $6,620 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 <:::>t::;)>:>.: linn CountyAttornev 0 $0 2 $310 11 $13,194 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 ~· ~ 5: ~ Logan County § ~ Sheritrs Office 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 ~§ Marion County ~~ Sheriff 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Marshall County ~~ Sheritrs Deoartment 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 ~~ McPherson Police '"'l Department 2 $127 1 $18 3 $3,344 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Meade County Sheritrs Deoartment 8 $26,248 3 $5585 2 $43 209 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Morris County Sheritrs Deoartment 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Neosho County Sheritrs Deoartment. 4 $563 4 $7057 6 $8282 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Norton County Sheritrs Office 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Olathe Police Department 17 $5,087 33 $58,486 41 $16,963 N 0 $0 7 $3,969 7 $5,466 Osage County Sheritrs Department 5 $59 685 2 $2 963 3 $101,825 y NA NA NA NA NA NA Osborne County Sheritrs Department 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Park City Police Department 1 $622 0 $0 0 $0 N 0 $20,951 0 $0 0 $772 Parsons Police Department 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Pawnee County Attomev 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Prairie Village Police Deoartment 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 y 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Pratt County Sheritrs Department 0 $0 0 $0 1 $13,000 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Pratt Police Department 0 $0 1 $8,000 0 $0 N 0 $0 0 $0 1 $656 Rawlins County Sheritrs Office 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Rice Countv Sheriff 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Riley County Police _Department 4 $15,595 9 $9,790 6 $8,073 y 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 UJ,_. w N
1999
Number
0 N 0 0 0 N 0 0
N 0 0 0
N 0 $0 0 $0 0
N 0 $0 0 $0 3
0 $0 0 $0 N 0 $0 0 $0 0
0 $0 0 $0 N 0 $0 0 $0 0
0 $0 0 $0 N 0 $0 0 $0 0
0 $0 0 $0 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 t ~I II Thomas County I ~- a ~·iS"~ tJ'?: -· n I $0 0 $0 I $8.029 $0 0 $0 0 ~- ~ II Sherifrs Office II 0 I I I I 3 I N I 0 I I I I c;· ::... ~ ~I II Sheriff II 2 I $10.519 I 0 I $0 I 2 I $0 I N I 0 I $0 I 0 I $0 I 0 ::...~ ~ ~~'""l Sheriff II 0 I $0 I 0 I $0 I 0 I $0 I N I 0 I $0 I 0 I $0 I 0 .__.::...a"'"'...... '"tl~ <::>;::: ~ Washington County :§5~'-'J Sheriff II 0 I $0 I 0 I $0 I 0 I $0 I N I 0 I $0 I 0 ~~~ ~l~ <::::>-<:: <::::>«>~:::-.~a <:::ll:::l ~· Wellington Police 1:;• (") ~ Deoartment 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 g-. ~ Wichita Police .£l.§ Department 34 $213 092 30 $60,236 29 $227,211 N 3 $76,991 3 $21,354 2 $185,253 ?~ Wilson County. ~~ Sheriffs Office 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 ~~ Winfield Police "-3 Deoartment 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Wyandotte County Sheriffs Office 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 N 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
UJ UJ APPENDIXD
Agency Responses
On August 9 we provided copies of the draft audit report to the Kansas Bureau oflnvestigation, the Kansas Highway Patrol, the Kansas City, Kansas Police Department, the Osage County Sheriffs Department, the Thomas County Sheriffs Office, the Garden City Police Department, and the Kansas Attorney General's Office. The responses from those agencies that provided a response are included in this appendix.
After carefully reviewing the responses, we made some minor clarifications to the draft audit that didn't affect any of our findings or conclusions.
34 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 Kansas Bureau of Investigation
Larry Welch Carla J. Stovall Director Attorney General August 18,2000
Barbara J. Hinton lEGISlATIVE POST AUDIT Legislative Post Auditor Legislative Division of Post Audit AUG J 8 2000 Mercantile Bank Tower 800 SW Jackson Street, Suite 1200 Topeka, Kansas 66612-2212
Dear Ms. Hinton:
On behalf of Director Welch, I am pleased to provide the KBI's written response to your recently completed performance audit Seized Property in Kansas: Determining Whether Laws Governing the Sale ofProperty Are Being Followed, and How the Proceeds are Spent.
First, let me compliment your staff that we worked with on this audit. They are very professional, dedicated and worked hard to try to understand a relatively complicated and obscure area oflaw. ·I am very pleased with the conclusions of the report regarding the two issues posed: whether Kansas Law Enforcement agencies are complying with the laws governing the sale of property and whether the proceeds are being spent appropriately. Unlike some jurisdictions, Kansas has been free of scandal regarding abuse of forfeiture. I attribute this to our excellent forfeiture law and the quality of Kansas law enforcement professionals.
Asset seizure and forfeiture is a strange concept for many people. Yet, the concept that offenders should not benefit from wrongdoing and that property used in an offense should be taken for the public good goes back at least to the Bible. People question the constitutionality, yet it was the same session of Congress that passed the Bill of Rights that also passed the first asset forfeiture law. As the chairman of the Attorney General's task force that drafted the original legislation, I was actively involved in its passage through the legislature. I honestly believe we have the best asset forfeiture law in the country, both for protection of innocent parties and effective use by law enforcement.
The benefits of forfeiture are many: it deprives the criminal of his ability to continue the criminal activity by taking away the resources with which he performs these crimes; it deters that particular individual by depriving him of the profits of the criminal enterprise; it deters others who see that, in fact, that crime doesn't pay; finally, in response particularly to the overwhelming growth in drug offenses over the last thirty years, we can, on occasion, provide
1620 S.W.l)'ler I Topeka, Kansas 66612-1837 I (785) 296-8200 FAX (785) 296-6781
PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT 35 Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 "special, additional" needed funds to assist in that fight. As noted in the report, forfeiture funds do not constitute a significant source of revenue. Nor may they be considered for budgets or used for operational expenses. This is important inasmuch as it removes the potential for conflict where an officer's salary, or the budget of the agency is dependent on assets seized.
I do take issue with the conclusion that the statutory restrictions set by the legislature regarding expenditure of these funds are "vague". As noted in the report, the requirement that funds be expended for "additional, special" items is slightly more restrictive than the national standard established by federal law. The committee, in drafting, and the legislature during debates, specifically gave that discretion to the local agency head, with the check and balance of having to run all expenditures through the local city council or county commission. The commissioners are responsible to the voters to supply the best oversight in determining what special, additional needs are most pressing in that locale. Needs change and vary by community size and evolving drug problem.
The audit investigation did not fmd any instances where forfeited funds were spent inappropriately. My suggestion is that the current language is sufficient and should not be changed. The vast majority of expenditures were for computers. That shouldn't surprise those of us who realize the impact and expense technology has placed on every facet of human life, including law enforcement.
You asked that the agency comment on the specific recommendations within the report.
Question 1: Are Law Enforcement Agencies Following the Applicable State laws Related to Handling Forfeited Property? The report notes two unique local agency problems and also recommends that the legislature consider legislation requiring separate accounting for monies resulting from seizure under federal law and state law. As noted in the report, there is no mandatory requirement to separate the funds, but such separation does assist in accounting for the monies. I agree that the funds should be kept separate for accounting purposes, as is done at the K.BI, but frankly believe that this could be handled through better training and education of law enforcement agencies and county treasurers. As noted in the report, local agencies who commingled the funds were doing so out of ignorance. I would suggest that education, maybe as simple as a letter to agency heads and treasurers, would resolve this concern.
Question 2: How Is Money Generated from Forfeited Property Being Used? As to question two, the first recommendation is that the legislature consider that if forfeiture money isn't being spent the way they intended, they should clarify what the money should be spent for. As noted above, this was discussed by the committee drafting the bill and in the legislature over two legislative sessions. Various options were discussed and the decision was made to have the local agencies, with the oversight of their funding authority (city commission or county commission), determine what are the most urgent additional special needs for that community. Given the items identified that were purchased and the lack of evidence that the money has been misspent, it would seem that the legislative intent has been carried out exactly as it was formulated.
36 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 The second recommendation is to require law enforcement agencies to report Federal forfeiture activity as it does under state forfeiture laws. This could certainly be done, but we would note that federal forfeiture proceedings and expenditures are already reported to federal law enforcement agencies. Indeed, the Federal government has no lack of required paperwork. If the legislature or someone else is interested, I believe these forms are available through the U.S. Attorney's Office and U.S. Marshal's Office. As such, I am not sure that the recommendation that law enforcement agencies be encumbered by duplicating this information is a good use of officer or agency time.
The third recommendation addresses the 'Colby situation'; the unique windfall forfeiture of over $3 million. While perhaps a common problem in Florida or California, this is the only case in Kansas that would fit this windfall provision. While I have no objection to it, I question the necessity of changing the statute for the one case that may happen every 20 or 30 years.
The fourth recommendation regards the Attorney General's duty to remind local law enforcement agencies of the complexities of the law and reporting requirements. The KBI, a division thereof, has tried to do this. Agents of the KBI and I have provided training throughout the state. As part of that training, we do cover the annual report. However, there is limited funding available in our budget for these activities. Attorney General Stovall agrees with the recommendation and a letter to all Kansas law enforcement agencies, reminding them of this requirement, will be sent as soon as this report is a public record.
I note your comments regarding the Kansas City, Kansas newspaper articles. The second example concerning possible circumvention of state law discusses a settlement where the threat of going federal obtained a $63,000 settlement. That is not correct, there has been no settlement. That has not been settled at this time. The civil claim has been waiting resolution of the Federal Tenth Circuit decision on the criminal case concerning the growing of 1,300 marijuana plants. Two weeks ago the Tenth Circuit confirmed the conviction and the search and seizure issues. The KBI will refer the forfeiture case to the U.S. Attorney's Office requesting adoption.
On the adoption there is some confusion as to checks and balances. The report states that Kansas law does not require law enforcement agencies to obtain a judge's approval prior to transfer for adoption. That is true. What it does not state is, however, the agency must first obtain the approval of the local (elected) county or district attorney. Since the local prosecutor's office stands to gain 15-20% in fees if handled under State law, this check is fairly effective in ensuring that there is a good reason to seek Federal adoption. Additionally, the law enforcement agency must obtain the approval ofthe adopting federal agency and the U.S. Attorney's Office which has the discretion to review the matter and determine whether adoption is appropriate. Since no case has been filed at this point, judicial determination would not be feasible or appropriate.
Finally, the newspaper series discussed requiring convictions as a prerequisite to forfeiture, which a small minority of states require prior to forfeiture. Drug dealers are always seeking new ways to insulate their activities and protect their ill-gotten gains. The use of straw owners is quite common where they may put property in the name of their grandmother or 14 year old daughter. One merely needs to look at the Colby Police Department case, where a
PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT 37 Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 nationwide drug dealer committed suicide with $3.7 million of drug proceeds in his trunk. If a conviction was required, obviously impossible under these circumstances, this illicit money would have gone to the drug dealer's heirs. Further, there are circumstances in which lesser criminals are not prosecuted in exchange for their cooperation and testimony against larger distributors or where defendants abscond while on bond and convictions are not obtained. All these circumstances would result in the state being unable to forfeit the drug proceeds, if conviction was a prerequisite to a forfeiture.
Thank you for this opportunity to respond. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.
KGS:ld
38 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT Legislative Division ofPost Audit August2000 Seroice-Courtesy-Protection
Bill Graves Governor Superintendent
August 18, 2000
RE: Performance Audit Report; Seized Property in Kansas: Determining Whether Laws Governing the Sale of Property Are Being Followed, and How the Proceeds are Being Spent.
Barbara J. Hinton, Legislative Post Auditor Legislative Division of Post Audit 800 SW Jackson Street, Suite 1200 Topeka, Kansas 66612-2212
Dear Mrs. Hinton:
I have had the opportunity to review the performance audit report regarding "seized property in Kansas", dated August 9, 2000, and offer the following response to the audit recommendations addressed to the Kansas Highway Patrol.
Question 1: Are Law Enforcement Agencies Following Applicable State Laws Related to Handling Forfeited Property? The report indicates that the Kansas Highway Patrol has appropriately disposed of forfeited property, but has commingled State forfeiture monies with monies received from State drug tax forfeitures.
The Performance Audit Report listed among its recommendations that. . . "to ensure that State and local agencies are complying with the reporting requirements of the Forfeiture Act, the Legislative Post Audit Committee or another appropriate committee should introduce legislation to amend the Act and the drug tax laws to specifically require separate accounting for money resulting from seizures under each law if the money is deposited into the same fund."
The Kansas Highway Patrol has taken immediate steps to create two separate sub-accounts within our State forfeiture fund. One sub-account will be dedicated to the deposit of State drug tax monies and the other for all other State forfeiture monies. By creating a separate account for each we will be able to maintain a separate receipt and expenditure record for each sub-account.
122 SW SEVENTH STREET TOPEKA, KANSAS 66603-3847 (785) 296-6800 FAX (785) 296-5956
PERFORMANCE AUDITREPORT 39 Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 Question 2: How is Money Generated from Forfeited Property Being Used? The report indicated that the expenditure of forfeited money and property by the Kansas Highway Patrol was allowable under State law. Referencing a series of articles in the Kansas City Star, the report suggested that a conflict of interest may exist "because agencies profit directly" from seizure laws, "and this profit could motivate them to become overzealous in their quest for forfeiture money''. This issue was regarded as a possible concern in Kansas. Speaking for the Kansas Highway Patrol, our criminal interdiction efforts have been successful due to our extensive training efforts. Our troopers have garnered the respect of State and Federal agencies, and have fostered the admiration of both State and Federal courts. Forfeited property and money amount to a small percentage of our annual budget; however, these monies assist our efforts in stemming the illegal flow of drugs and contraband through our state via the.use of Kansas' roadways and result in numerous felony arrests. All of our Troopers are instructed in the importance of looking beyond the initial traffic stop as a means to identify criminal activity.
The Performance Audit Report listed among its recommendations ... "To ensure the Legislature receives the entire scope of State agency forfeiture activity, the Legislative Post Audit Committee, or another appropriate committee, should introduce legislation to amend the Forfeiture Act to require State agencies to annually report their forfeiture activity under both State and Federal laws to the Legislature. Currently, the act only addresses forfeitures handled under state law".
Information regarding the Patrol's Federal forfeiture fund is currently reported to the Legislature in the Kansas Highway Patrol's Annual Budget Report. Proceeds received from Federal forfeitures by the Kansas Highway Patrol have been audited a number of times and found to be in compliance with Federal guidelines.
One recommendation that I offer in behalf of the Patrol is to adjust the reporting time frames from December 2 through December 1, to align with the State's fiscal year, July 1 through June 30.
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Performance Audit Report and I would like to thank Anthony Perez and your staff for their efforts in compiling the report.
Sincerely, ~ DB:sks
40 PERFORMANCE AUDITREPORT Legislative Division ofPost Audit August2000 CITY OF GARDEN CITY
GARDEN Cnv, KANSAS 67846
PoucE DEPARTMENT
P.O.Box499 JAMES R. HAWKINS 316-276-1300 304 N. 91H 5-TREET CHIEF OF PoucE FAX: 316-276-1313
August 18, 2000 LEGISLATIVE POST AUDIT
AUG 18 ml Barbara J. Hinton Legislative Division of Post Audit Mercantile Bank Tower 800 SW Jackson Street, Suite 1200 Topeka, Kansas 66612-2212
Dear Ms. Hinton:
My staff and I have reviewed the performance audit and we are prepared to comment.
First, as correctly noted in your report, the Garden City Police Department did establish a sub account for drug tax money midway through 1999 in order to separate drug tax monies from the State forfeiture account as required by Federal guidelines. We appreciate you bringing that to our attention. ·
Secondly there are some observations, in general, regarding recommendations to other agencies and proposed legislation. The recommendation on page 12, #2, for Osage County to "review and modify internal procedures for handling informant expenses" appears to be aimed at limiting the amount of Special Investigations Unit (SIU) funds an agency may have out, and for how long. We feel that should this become a legislative initiative, it would be unnecessary legislative intervention in local drug enforcement operations. An attempt to every agency's ability to decide what is needed to conduct local operations would be too restrictive. An agency with strong and exact internal controls should be able to address that issue effectively.
The recommendation (page 19, #1) for the legislature to amend the Kansas Forfeiture Act which deals with how an agency may spend forfeiture funds appears to be aimed at the "additional and special" part of the State requirement. The auditors believe that the terms are not well enough defined and "leaves the decision as to what is additional and special to the discretion of each law enforcement agency." While the auditors found that, "All the expenditures we reviewed appeared to be allowable under State and federal guidelines"; the implication is that local law enforcement agencies cannot make sound judgements regarding what is best for the agency or the community. Local agencies must be trusted to make those decisions.
The recommendation (page 19, #2) for the legislature to "amend the forfeiture act to require State agencies to annually report their forfeiture activity under both State and federal laws to the
PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT 41 Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 Legislature" simply adds an additional layer of reporting to what is already in place. Any agency that receives federal forfeiture funds must report activity annually and it appears that this would be a duplication of efforts.
The recommendation (page 19, #3) for the Legislature, ''To allow entire communities to benefit from 'windfall' forfeitures like the one in Colby", by amending the Forfeiture Act to allow sharing of any amount of forfeiture that represents more than 25% of the agency's annual budget to be transferred to programs to support drug abuse treatment. ... " appears to be an initiative aimed at using law enforcement funds for social programs. The intent and purpose of the Forfeiture Act was to take assets and tools from drug traffickers and to use the proceeds to further investigate trafficking. Drug trafficking enforcement statistics will support the continuing need for the use of those proceeds.
There is a concern expressed on page 15 about too little oversight of forfeited claims because, ·"Kansas law does not require law enforcement agencies to get a judge's approval to transfer a forfeiture case to the federal court." Other civil action does not require State Court permission to file in Federal Court.
Lastly, the suggestion on page 15 that agencies that get to keep forfeiture moneys have an inherent conflict of interest implies that agencies are inherently dishonest and cannot be trusted. An agency with strong internal controls can oversee this issue effectively. We recommend that if an agency is found to be in violation during an audit, that agency could be suspended from receivingfunds for a determinate period of time.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to respond to the audit.
James R. Hawkins Chief of Police
42 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 KEN LIPPERT OSAGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE sheriff 702Ash LYNDON, KANSAS 66451 Phone (785) 828-3121 FAX (785) 828·3662
August 18, 2000
LAURIE DUNN undersheriff LEGISLATIVE POST AUDIT
AUG 18 Jm
Anthony Perez, Supervisor Legislative Division of Post Audit Mercantile Bank Tower 800 SW Jackson Street, Suite 1200 Topeka, Kansas 66612-2212 Dear Mr. Perez: To the best of our knowledge and ability all of the problems in your audit have been dealt with. Sincerely, ~~ Sheriff
PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT 43 Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 225 North court COlby, 1<111\111 87701 (785) 482-4570 FIX (785) 482·3877 Thomas w. Jones, Shll'fff Mlchlel L. Baughn, Undersheriff LEGISLATIVE POST AUDIT August 18~ 2000 AUG 18 2000 Ms. Barbara J. Hinton Legislative Division Of Post Audit 900 SW Jackson, Suite 1200 Topeka, KS 66615-2212
Dear Ms. Hinton:
Please accept om appreciation of your staff in their recent performance audit of seized properties and assets in Thomas County, Kansas. The team of auditors conducted themselves in a courteous and professional manner.
I am responding to the audit recommendation made by your staff. Thomas County, upon initially seizing money, was paying 15% of those seized funds into the County Attorney's forfeiture fund with the remaining 85% being placed into the Thomas County Sheriff's forfeiture fund. To prevent the risk of Thomas County spending any of these monies before final judgement is awarded, I have enacted the following procedure. As of this time forward, any and all monies that are se~d by the Thomas County Sheriff's office will be turned over to the Thomas County Treasurer. The Thomas County Treasurer will deposit 100% of those funds into a Pending Forfeiture Account. This pending account cannot be spent until a district judge signs the final Order of Judgement. After the final Order of Judgement is signed, 15% of the total amount will be transferred to the Thomas County Attorney forfeiture fund and the remaining 85% will be transferred to the Thomas County Sheriff's forfeiture fund.
This should rectifY any existing problems, however; if this does not meet with your approval, please contact Jli.e.
TWJ/twj
44 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000 lE~ISlATIVE POST AUDIT ; ~tate of ~lihmsas - AUG I 7 2000
120 S.W. 10th Avenue, 2ND FLOOR, TOPEKA, KANSAS 66 l2-b~":li7-t------_j
CARLA J. STOVALL MAIN PHONE: ATIORNEY GENERAL August 17, 2000 FAx: 296-6296
Legislative Division of Post Audit c/o Barbara J. Hinton, Legislative Post Auditor 800 SW Jackson St., Suite 1200 Topeka, Kansas 66612-2212
Dear Ms. Hinton:
Upon review ofthe Performance Audit Report concerning forfeitures, my office has begun drafting a letter to all state and local agencies which will address the reporting requirements pursuant to K.S.A. 60-4117(d)(2). Once the letter is completed, I will forward a copy to both you and the committee.
Very truly yours,
Carla~:s~ J. Stovall Attorney General
cc: Senator Lana Oleen Committee Chair
PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT 45 Legislative Division ofPost Audit August 2000