Re: May 24 editorial.
The Colorado Municipal League would like to respond to some of the assertions made in your editorial. First, wesupport the transparency measures in . What we oppose is curbing the use of civil asset forfeiture as a tool without demonstrated evidence that there is a problem in Colorado. Second, like the bill’s proponents, The Post cites no Colorado data justifying the arbitrary $50,000 threshold created in HB 1313. Finally, the bill does nothing to preclude the federal government from seizing assets of criminal enterprise, but rather places a chilling effect on local law enforcementap ability to help eradicate major crimes in our communities.
The Colorado Municipal Leaguesupports a process that will allow public access to information about local law enforcementap participation in asset forfeiture. We havealways believed this is a reasonable approach. We believethe data will show that the types of abuses seen nationally are not happening in Colorado.
In many instances, more than 50percent of assets seized and forfeited in Colorado will be adversely impacted by the new $50,000 threshold limit in the bill. Establishing an arbitrary threshold is not reform, but merely creating policy without taking into account the practical implications created by the new law.
If the intent is to incentivize the use of the state civil forfeiture process, there needs to be further discussion with police, sheriffs and local governments —something that did not occur with this legislation.
Sam Mamet, Denver
The writer is executive director of the Colorado Municipal League.
The Denver Post explained that various municipalities and law enforcement agencies are lobbying Gov. JohnHickenlooper to veto the asset forfeiture bill just passed by the state legislature. I want to remind the governor that he is a representative of the people of Colorado, not of anybody else, not any municipality, not any law enforcement agency and not of lobbyists.Forany body of government to take the property of its citizens without cause is simply theft by another name and must be stopped in its entirety. The bill before the governor is a decent start to ending the practice.
Stephen Holben,Lakewood
Submit a letter to the editor via or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
