Lets not make it harder for law enforcement to use civil asset forfeiture to fight the war on drugs.

Most people are oblivious to that war, though it rages around us continually. Worth an estimated $120 billion a year, illegal drugs smuggled from Mexico might well be the greatest foreign threat to our national security. Beyond a doubt, its the one killing the most Americans.

Your current subscription does not provide access to this content. Please click the button below to manage your account.

Thank you for reading and relying on TulsaWorld.com for your news and information. You have now viewed your allowance of free articles.

To get a first-hand look, I recently visited a drug task force that operates out of a county courthouse in southeast Oklahoma. In one room was a just-arrested drug mule and more than a million dollars worth of marijuana. In another was a photo of an 18-year-old Oklahoma girl, dead of a drug overdose. It was haunting, how her still-open eyes stared straight into the police camera.

Her case was not especially outrageous. No, the outrage is that cases like hers are so commonplace. Thats every day, shrugged the officer who showed me the photo from a new case that morning.

Its easy to make civil asset forfeiture sound like an un-American, police-state scenario. Although assets may be seized without first obtaining a drug-related conviction, the reason for no conviction is no trial. The reason for no trial is the drug mule posts bail and is never seen again.

Oklahoma law enforcement may not seize someones homestead in the case of a drug bust involving local citizens. And despite what youve heard, if an officer sees a bag of cash in a car, absent other evidence he will not seize it.

If cash is seized, it has to wind its way through a tedious government process before eventual distribution among the state, county and municipal agencies having overlapping territorial jurisdiction. And boy, do they need that money.

Not for salaries, though. Those come from local funds supplemented by federal Justice Assistance Grants made to the states. Every year for the past three years JAG funding has declined, most recently by 18.5 percent.

Rather, income from asset forfeiture covers only operational costs: bulletproof vests, clothing, radios, tires, gasoline and, rarely, a new vehicle. A radio can cost $4,000. Thanks to changing technology standards, upgrading radios is a requirement. Believe it or not, a bulletproof vest decomposes and is warrantied only for three years.

Seizing a drug mules vehicle is problematic. If he drives a rental car, the agency is considered innocent and gets its vehicle back. Alternatively, drug runners often drive someone elses car. The required procedures to gain title can require years of effort. The task force I visited still had vehicles seized more than two years ago. Sometimes their value is so low, its just not worth the trouble.

My visit convinced me that, far from having a free hand, law enforcement almost has its hands tied. If you look at this as a war, this is not a war we are going to win, an officer told me.

But wait, theres more: 80 percent of nondrug crimes burglary, theft, domestic violence trace to the criminals addiction to drugs or alcohol. And, therefore, so are the resulting burdens on society like divorce, foster care, prison crowding and treatment expense.

A vote to make civil asset forfeiture more difficult, one could argue, is a vote to make Oklahomas social problems worse.

Maybe our Legislature should mandate a $5,000 fine for transporting drugs in a vehicle that you dont own, and make the fine due when posting bail. Thats a simple step based on the facts on the ground. It would take traffickers money and use it against them.

Civil asset forfeiture alone will not win the drug war. But it helps keep our officers on the front lines.

Scott Pendleton is a former international journalist and president of an IT solutions provider in Tulsa.

More:

Scott Pendleton: Civil forfeiture is an important tool in fighting the war on drugs - Tulsa World