By Patrick Strawbridge

This is one in a series of World-Herald articles looking back on the 20^th century.

Schools get nothing.

It’s an end run around the state constitution, but it’s allowed under federal rules for handling assets seized from drug dealers.

Law enforcement officials in Nebraska say the maneuver is proper and useful. It gives them extra cash to help finance their fight against drug traffickers.

State Patrol Maj. Gale P. Griess said his agency has used the $618,000 it has received in the past five years to purchase body armor, computers, cameras and other gear it needs and cannot normally afford.

"These days, it seems we’re asked to do more and more with less," he said.

But some Nebraska lawmakers don’t like the sidestepping of the Constitution, and several legal experts question whether police ought to profit from seizing suspects’ money.

Clarence Mock, an Omaha area attorney who has worked on several forfeiture cases, said it’s bad public policy to let police keep the money they find.

The funneling of locally seized drug money through the federal government is common in states such as Nebraska where legislatures have sought to restrict the unfettered flow of drug money into the pockets of local police.

In states such as Iowa, where laws allow police to keep most of the drug money they confiscate, police more often go through state court.

When money is forfeited through Nebraska courts, the 50 percent not set

aside for schools is earmarked for anti-drug efforts. But police departments don’t have direct access. The cash is placed in a county drug fund and disbursed through an independent board. The money can be used by police, but it also helps fund educational programs.

Tom Monaghan, U.S. attorney for Nebraska, said the federal government takes an active interest in all cash seizures of more than $5,000 and sees itself as the coordinator of all major forfeitures. In some cases, the assets are seized as part of a joint investigation between local and federal officials.

In other cases, though, police simply take money they find through federal court even if there was no apparent federal connection to the investigation. The U.S. government won’t release records that would distinguish which cases were handled by which agencies, but several court cases give a glimpse of the money Nebraska schools aren’t getting:

A May 1997 traffic stop for speeding on Interstate 80 led an Omaha police officer to discover more than $404,000 hidden in a U-Haul trailer. Although Omaha police investigated the case, the money was given to federal prosecutors. Omaha police stand to receive as much as $320,000. Douglas County schools won’t see the $202,000 they would have been entitled to under state law.

A search of two south Omaha homes by Omaha police in 1996 turned up more than $30,000 and small quantities of drugs. Although the suspected drug dealer who owned the money was prosecuted on state charges, the cash was given to the federal government. Loss to schools: $15,000.

A Valley, Neb., police officer pulled over a Mercedes sedan in September 1995 after the driver allegedly swerved off the road and onto the shoulder.

A search of the car turned up a small amount of marijuana and more than $54,000 cash. After the seizure, the Valley department notified the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, which initiated forfeiture proceedings.

Eventually, the Valley department split the bulk of the money with the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office, which had provided the dog that helped search the car. Valley Police Chief K.C.

"The schools, in my mind, are not part of the equation," he said. "They are in the sense that they get some of the money, but we’re the ones making the recovery."

The Nebraska Attorney General’s Office does not track the overall amount forfeited through state court. But Douglas County - the state’s leader in forfeiture cases - sees about $54,000 each year.

In Iowa, state law allows police to keep 90 percent of what they find. The Iowa Attorney General’s Office keeps the balance, said Iowa Deputy Attorney General Doug Marek.

"We’ve seen amounts of $40,000, $50,000, even $60,000 in state court," he said.

Marek said that between $1 million and $1.2 million is forfeited through Iowa’s state courts each year. "Overall, it’s worked quite well," Marek said.

National experts, however, said that when police departments profit directly from cash seizures, it creates an incentive for them to cross the line.

Jim Gurule, an associate dean of law at the University of Notre Dame, said many legislatures - including those in Nebraska, Missouri and Wisconsin - specifically tried to keep departments from reaping the benefits of their searches.

"When law enforcement has a financial interest in the amount that officers uncover, the potential for abuse exists," said Gurule, who has co-written a legal text on forfeitures.Griess, the state patrol major, said that motivation has not materialized in Nebraska.

"Our guys are out there to get the bust and get the drugs," he said. "I’ll argue that until the cows come home."

He also downplayed the danger of overzealous officers. Even when local departments go the federal route, he said, they sometimes have to share proceeds with other states. In all, Griess said, the state patrol keeps only about 27 percent of what it finds.

Monaghan said that if any law enforcement officers did cross the line, he would refuse to take the case - and has done so.

"That’s not an issue here," he said.

In addition to the extra money, there’s another reason local officials use the federal system when it comes to forfeiture cases.

In state court, prosecutors have the burden of proof, said Corey O’Brien, the assistant Douglas County Attorney who oversees local forfeitures.

"It’s a quasi-criminal proceeding in that I have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt," O’Brien said.

Mock said the deck is stacked in favor of law enforcement in the federal system.

"It’s another impetus for police to take it to the feds," he said.

Although federal guidelines generally keep cases involving less than $5,000 in the state court system, O’Brien said he has taken one or two smaller cases to federal court because he did not think they could be won at the state level.

The Douglas County school fund has received $37,000 for each of the past two years from smaller forfeiture actions left in state courts. Had some of the money taken to federal court been deposited in the county’s coffers, the difference may have been only pennies to each taxpayer.

"Those pennies clearly add up," said Robert Bligh, an attorney for the Nebraska Association of School Boards. "I think every dollar makes a difference, especially when the Legislature has put a lid on how much tax can be levied."

Several Nebraska legislators questioned whether police ought to ignore the state constitution. It undermines a law that was approved directly by voters, said State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha.

"The federal government should not help these agencies evade the state constitution," said Chambers, a frequent critic of police. "I’m really dismayed. There may need to be some legislation to ensure it gets done they way the constitution says it should be."

Sen. Ardyce Bohlke of Hastings, chairman of the Legislature’s Education Committee, said the practice would seem to go against the wishes of voters, who frequently support schools and tax relief.

"Money like that could make a very big difference in some of our schools," she said. "I plan to find out what the dollar amount is."

Legislative efforts are no guarantee against police turning to federal court. Although the Missouri Legislature attempted to curb the practice in 1993, it has endured in that state.

That’s a shame, said Gurule, the law professor.