Overshadowed by high-profile races for president and U.S. Senate, three state measures that appear on Oregon’s May primary ballots aim to update crime victims’ rights and police seizure rights. Two appear exactly alike, and their similarities have confused some voters, while the third is meant to fix holes in the 2000 ballot Measure 3.
Measures 51 and 52 will offer legal reforms for citizens once their civil rights have been violated. Currently Oregon is one of only two states that do not allow crime victims the right to appeal under such circumstances, said Steve Doell, president of Crime Victims United of Oregon.
Measure 53 expands on Measure 3 and gives more wiggle room for law enforcement in terms of what property it can seize.
Supporters of all three measures say the changes are needed for crime victims and law enforcement. The opposition, however, has been silent.
No organized parties filed an opposing argument for the state’s voter guide, which offers detailed explanations and arguments for and against each ballot measure.
Even the American Civil Liberties Union, often a challenger to issues involving legal rights, has remained neutral on all three measures.
Measures 51 and 52
These two statewide measures are both meant to strengthen the rights of crime victims, but they appear on ballots to be near exact copies of one another, causing confusion for some voters.
State law mandates that each constitutional amendment must have its own ballot measure. Since lawmakers want two sections of the constitution amended, there must be two separate ballot measures presented to voters.
Section 42 of the Oregon Constitution’s Bill of Rights gives crime victims a number of rights, including the right to be present at critical stages in a criminal case, to be heard at the criminal sentencing, to be consulted about plea negotiations and the right to receive prompt restitution for loss or injury.
Section 43 also grants crime victims certain rights. These rights keep offenders, especially violent criminals, away from the victims in court proceedings after they have been released from prison, and also restricts bail for violent criminals.
Currently, however, crime victims have no way to actually enforce these civil rights.
“Of course, civil rights are enforceable, otherwise they really aren’t civil rights, instead they are illusory rights,” said Lewis & Clark Law School professor Douglas Beloof in an e-mail. “It is important to students because they too can be or have been victims of crime who may need to enforce their rights in the courts.”
Measures 51 and 52, if passed, would amend the state’s constitution to empower victims to seek remedies for violations of their constitutional rights.
Lane County prosecutors generally receive good feedback from crime victims, said Lane County’s Deputy District Attorney Alex Gardner. “We have done more that what is constitutionally required of us,” he said.
Current law states that a victim’s rights cannot invalidate a court rule or hold up a case. But if these measures are passed, victims could challenge a ruling of a court denying them of their constitutional rights. They could also seek a delay in an adult criminal or juvenile delinquency case.
Measure 53
The third statewide measure is meant to fix a number of holes in the Oregon Property Protection Act of 2000, which was crafted to protect innocent citizens who were wrongfully swept up in criminal arrests from law enforcement officers seizing their property.
Under the act, property could only be forfeited if a person was found guilty of a crime and the government could provide clear and convincing evidence that the property was related to the crime the person had been convicted of committing.
Certain questions began to arise after this measure was passed, and now lawmakers are attempting to address these problems.
For example, what do officers do with a pile of cash found next to a pile of drugs? What can an officer do to save neglected pets in the house of an arrested suspect? It could take months, or even years for a trial to drag out – can these abused animals be put up for adoption, or do they have to wait in a kennel for an extended period of time?
Law enforcement agencies cannot use forfeited property for enforcement purposes under current law, so how do these state agencies share in federal programs that dish out proceeds from seizures?
Measure 53 is meant to fix these three previously unseen outcomes.
Police would be able to seize the cash next to the drugs and put the animals up for adoption. It would also remove the restriction on state and local governments from using forfeited property for law enforcement purposes.
The measure would take seizure rules one step further and would allow civil forfeiture of property that is connected to similar crimes for which a person is convicted.
[email protected]