Iowa forfeiture: Forfeiture spending questioned in Iowa, elsewhere

Scented candles, mulch and tropical fish are among the purchases Iowa law enforcement agencies have made with some of the nearly $43 million they have seized in the past six years using state and federal civil forfeiture laws.

Such spending adds fuel to a national debate over whether police have an incentive to pad their departments' budgets with cash and other assets seized from people who frequently aren't even charged with a crime.

To be sure, the majority of Iowa forfeiture expenditures reviewed by The Des Moines Register meet state requirements: The money must be spent in ways that enhance law enforcement and crime-fighting capabilities, including the purchase of cameras, computers, guns and vehicles. The money is not meant to pay expenses that normally would be covered by departmental budgets.

But thousands of dollars also were used for spending where the connection with enhanced crime fighting is less clear. Among them:

The scented candles ($205), mulch ($19) and tropical fish ($90) bought for the Cass County Attorney's office.

A $27,000 Jeep Grand Cherokee purchased for the Muscatine County attorney.

Sewer and water bills for the Polk County Sheriff's office, as well as more than $300,000 for what it listed only as "secret investigations" by the Central Iowa Drug Task Force.

Respirators purchased by the Iowa Department of Public Safety for training firefighters, using federal civil forfeiture money. An audit later determined that spending was not related to law enforcement activities, so DPS shifted the $53,000 cost to state forfeiture funds, which allow more leeway in how the money is used.

Across the nation, high-profile examples of questionable — and in some cases, illegal — uses of assets seized through state and federal civil forfeiture laws have brought renewed scrutiny to how police spend that money.

REGISTER INVESTIGATION: Finders, keepers: Investigation of Iowa forfeitures | All the stories

Such laws were intended as a powerful tool to rein in drug lords and organized crime kingpins. But what happens to the money after it is collected is sometimes shrouded in secrecy or has little to do with that mission.

One of the most extreme cases concluded last year, when a former Romulus, Mich., police chief and three of his detectives were convicted of using forfeiture funds to pay for prostitutes, alcohol and marijuana, and to buy the chief's wife a tanning salon.

One factor that allows potentially questionable spending to persist is a lack of accountability, according to a 2010 study released by the Institute for Justice. The report found that only 29 states — Iowa wasn't one of them — clearly require law enforcement to collect and report forfeiture data.

"In most states, we know nothing or next to nothing about the use of civil forfeiture or its proceeds," said Scott Bullock, one of the report's authors.

Cass County weighs asking for audit

Former Cass County Attorney Daniel Feistner used forfeiture money to buy the scented candles for his office in 2013. He said the candles helped mask unpleasant body odors from some members of the visiting public.

"I'm telling you, we'd get people up on the third floor, and the (odor) would get pretty funky," Feistner said, explaining the $205 expense. "I'll be honest with you, you've got to buy a quality candle, and a quality candle is probably $30."

Forfeiture money also was used during Feistner's tenure to purchase new carpet or floor coverings for the office for $3,500.

"Sometimes these amounts look relatively small, so it's easy to consider them innocuous," said Larry Salzman, a former attorney for the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit group based in Virginia that advocates for changes in forfeiture laws. "But remember, much of this is being paid for by money taken from people who have never been proven guilty. That's just wrong."

Iowa administrative rules say forfeited property must be used for the "enhancement of law enforcement and cannot supplant normally budgeted items."

Law enforcement agencies say they are following those guidelines. Most of the money is used for critical purposes, such as buying equipment that assists in public and employee safety, they say.

As for other items: Iowa rules allow agencies wide discretion, and even amenities like scented candles meet the rules, they say.

"While, yeah, there were small purchases for the office for something like a candle or supplies that I probably used seized funds for, but I don't think there was anything remotely out of line," said Feistner, who lost his re-election bid last year.

Nonetheless, Cass County officials are considering asking the office of State Auditor Mary Mosiman to review its recent forfeiture spending as part of its upcoming audit.

"This is the type of thing I have questions about," Cass County Auditor Dale Sunderman said when asked about how his county has spent seized cash. "I question whether that falls under the header" of law enforcement enhancement that doesn't supplant normal budget items.

Attorney's new car raises eyebrows

Muscatine County supervisors were surprised last year to learn that County Attorney Alan Ostergren had spent more than $27,000 in civil forfeiture money — seized by the Muscatine County Drug Task Force — to buy a new Jeep Grand Cherokee to drive for work.

Kas Kelly, the board's chairwoman, complained during an August county board meeting that the purchase "blindsided" supervisors.

Ostergren defended it, telling supervisors it would likely save taxpayers money in the long run.

One of the advantages, he said, is that he can trade in the vehicle annually, similar to a program used by the sheriff's office. A trade-in would allow him to get a new car every year for just $2,000.

The prosecutor also told the Register that the Jeep's estimated mileage cost is about 21 cents per mile, half of what he previously received for driving his own vehicle on county business. Public records show Ostergren's average annual mileage reimbursement the previous five years was less than $600 a year.

Informed of that apparent discrepancy in actual expenses and potential savings, Ostergren said he was traveling thousands of miles more each year, but had neglected to claim the mileage expenses for reimbursement.

"It was a bit like writing down how much food you eat in a day and realizing how many calories it is," Ostergren wrote in an email to the Register. "Based on everything, I believed it was a reasonable savings to use the vehicle and appropriate given the amount and type of driving I do for the county."

A state audit of Muscatine County released Feb. 5 found some accounting procedures had not been properly followed, but it did not cite the vehicle as an inappropriate purchase. The audit noted that the task force did not use separate accounting for federal forfeitures it received. County officials promised to fix the problem.

Critics say such purchases highlight a troublesome trend encouraged by civil forfeiture programs.

The Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based conservative think tank, says allowing law enforcement agencies to keep the money they seize creates an incentive to use forfeiture for their own gain rather than public safety. And that weakens the local system of checks and balances that the budget-setting process provides, it says.

"Another problem with this kind of profit motive is it takes the power out of the hands of city councils, boards of supervisors or legislators who set budgets," said Andrew Kloster, who studies civil forfeitures nationwide for the foundation. "When you're self-funding, that allows agencies to avoid oversight."

Are budgets reliant on seized funds?

The Register reviewed a sample of line-item seizure spending by law enforcement agencies across the state. Hundreds of thousands of dollars went toward vehicle maintenance, equipment, drug- or bomb-sniffing dogs and office furniture — purchases that agencies without access to forfeiture money would have to pay out of their budgets.

The Polk County Sheriff's Department spent some of its money on water and sewer fees. The department in the last three fiscal years also spent $327,439 for what it listed as "secret investigations."

A sheriff's department spokesman said he could not provide more detail about how that money was spent because it could compromise ongoing investigations. The utility expenses were directly related to drug enforcement, the spokesman said, but did not elaborate.

State agencies also spent forfeiture funds for items that perhaps could have been paid for out of departmental budgets.

The Iowa Department of Transportation's motor vehicle enforcement division, for example, spent almost $79,000 of forfeited money on clothing. And the state's justice system spent more than $12,000 of its share of seized cash for copying machines the past two years.

FULL COVERAGE:

The attorney general's office paid salary, benefits and costs of some prosecutors using nearly $1.8 million from the forfeiture fund since July 1, 2009, records show.

Eric Tabor, chief of staff for the Iowa attorney general's office, defended the spending, saying Iowa's "supplanting rules" apply only to local government spending, not state agencies.

But that doesn't change the underlying issue, critics argue: Budgets that depend on seizures, regardless if they are for state or local governments, encourage unfair, unethical and even criminal practices.

"The state needs to address the budget and not allow police departments to take finances into their own hands by making forfeitures that are questionable at best and downright criminal at worst," said Glen Downey, a Des Moines attorney who has represented many clients in forfeiture cases.

FINDERS, KEEPERS

SUNDAY: Iowa's civil forfeiture law yields millions for law enforcement agencies, but is rated one of the nation's most unfair.

TODAY: Lack of transparency makes it hard to track where the money goes. Some is spent in questionable ways.

TUESDAY: Some property owners question police procedures for accounting for their seized cash and other assets.

NEXT SUNDAY: Many agree that Iowa's civil forfeiture system is broken. What can be done to fix it?

ABOUT THE AUTHORS:

Jason Clayworth is an investigative reporter at The Des Moines Register who focuses on law enforcement, government spending and open record issues. He is an Iowa native and a graduate of Drake University.

Grant Rodgers is a reporter who has worked for The Des Moines Register since May 2013 and covers Polk County, Iowa and federal courts. He is an Ottumwa native and graduate of Simpson College.