The Montezuma County Sheriff’s Office has used proceeds from the sale earlier this year of a seized pot farm to purchase seven vehicles, firearms and ammunition, cameras and field gear, according to a department spokesperson.

The way in which the funds were spent, the accounting for those funds, and whether the meetings of the local forfeiture committee are public meetings all raise questions about whether state law was followed. However, local officials say everything is kosher, and newly elected District Attorney Joe Olt says he is eager to have more such forfeitures during his tenure.

The Aug. 19, 1999, seizure of a 600-acre Weber Canyon property on which marijuana was being grown netted the Montezuma County Sheriff’s Office $271,001.35 on April 7, 2000, after costs of the sale were deducted.

Fifteen percent of that amount — $40,650 — went on April 11 to 22nd Judicial District Attorney Mike Green’s office.

The forfeiture money available to the MCSO this year totaled $231,745.47, according to the bank statements for the fund, which were provided by Sheriff Joey Chavez, with Sheriff’s Lt. Kalvin Boggs providing access to the purchasing documents.

That figure includes an opening balance of $1,394.12, plus the money from the Weber Canyon forfeiture, minus the $40,650 to the district attorney’s office.

Four vehicles have been purchased and three more have had down payments made from the forfeiture fund, according to Boggs. The total approved for the seven vehicles is $131,415.78, nearly 57 percent of the total fund.

This total does not include the two $750 rebates received by the MCSO on purchases of two of the vehicles.

All of the vehicles are Dodge 4x4 pickups with 4-door cabs, the type of vehicle that is becoming the department’s standard. Six of the trucks were purchased from Southwest Auto in Cortez.

Other acquisitions include backup sidearms for each officer, ammunition, 21 35mm cameras for use at incident scenes, a $10,000 surveillance camera, and field gear (webbing, packs, etc.).

Boggs said the patrol, detention, detective and administrative departments submitted "wish lists" that were then prioritized by the sheriff.

The forfeiture money that went to the district attorney’s office was, according to Green, used to purchase a copier, office furniture and computers. Green said he had to upgrade his office’s computer equipment to be able to link statewide.

Forfeiture funds result from the seizure of money or from the sale of seized real or personal property as a consequence of a judicial determination that the seized property is a Class I public nuisance or is contraband.

"Public nuisance,"as defined in Colorado Revised Statutes 16-13-303, includes places of prostitution, gambling premises and other properties that have been used, for example, in connection with sexual exploitation of children or activities related to illegal manufacture, sale or distribution of controlled substances.

Such properties, including paraphernalia and vehicles used in connection with the illegal activities, may be forfeited.

Whatever the grounds for the seizure, the legislature has put some fences around the resulting property or money. Seized property cannot be sold to employees of the receiving agency. The statutes also state that, "Generation of revenue shall not be the primary purpose of asset forfeiture" and "No prosecutor’s or law enforcement officer’s employment or level of salary shall depend upon the frequency of seizures or forfeitures which such person achieves."

The legislature was clear in stating that forfeiture funds "shall not be considered a source of revenue to meet normal operating needs" of the seizing agency or agencies.

However, the statutes neither define "normal operating needs" nor say that agencies are prohibited from spending forfeiture funds on normal operating needs.

Members of Montezuma County’s forfeiture committee, which decides how such money is spent, said they did not believe the purchases of new vehicles, guns and computers constituted "normal operating needs" because it would have taken years to get the same equipment through the normal budget process.

"My budget hasn’t changed in four years," Green lamented, adding, "We never could have gotten (the money) from the two counties" that comprise the 22nd Judicial District.

Under Colorado law, money allocated to the sheriff has to be approved by a "committee on disposition of forfeited property," made up of the sheriff, the district attorney and a representative of county government, or their designees.

In Montezuma County, that committee has been Chavez, Green and County Commissioner Gene Story.

The makeup of the district attorney’s committee is less clear, both according to Green when interviewed and according to the statutes, which describe the composition when "the seizing agency is a district attorney’s office." In the Weber Canyon forfeiture, the seizing agency was the sheriff’s office.

The reporting of how forfeiture money is spent is another unclear area.

Though the forfeiture fund controlled by the sheriff’s office existed prior to this year, there appear to be no accountability reports on file in the locations required by statute.

The statutes state in several passages that seized property, or property purchased with forfeiture funds, is to be accounted for in the same manner as property acquired with appropriated funds.

In addition, CRS 16-13-701 says the offices shall "submit a written report of any forfeited moneys or property received during such fiscal year to the governmental body or bodies which have approval authority over the budget of such seizing agency and to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs.

"Such report shall include an accounting of how any forfeited moneys or property were expended during such fiscal year," the statutes state.

According to Boggs, an independent auditor will audit the forfeiture fund and the auditor’s statements will be forwarded to be included with the audit of county funds.

The county administration has neither access to, nor ongoing accountability for, the sheriff’s forfeiture fund.

Ken Charles, in charge of the Durango office of the Department of Local Affairs, said, "This statute was put in to require some form of reporting by the seizing agency, in this case the sheriff. (Local Affairs) and the governmental body having approval over the budget of the seizing agency, the sheriff, are supposed to receive a report.

"Apparently, seized proceeds are outside of the normal local governmental budgetary process, but the reporting process still applies. Local Affairs does keep the reports on file, but does not do anything else with them."

On Dec. 14, Geoff Withers, from the state office of Local Affairs, reported via e-mail, "We do not find any report from Montezuma County that we have received pursuant to this statute."

Another unclear area is notice for meetings of the forfeiture committee.

The "committee on disposition of forfeited property" is made up of people who hold elected office, but who were not elected to be on the committee.

This raised questions in Green’s mind as to the applicability of Colorado’s Open Meetings Act to the meetings of the committee.

However, Story said there was no reason why the meetings shouldn’t be open and, though there were no records of the meetings "that I’m aware of, there probably should be." (This reporter was later notified of an impending meeting of the forfeiture committee.)

The forfeiture fund is relatively new to Montezuma County experience. Olt has promised, "I intend to forfeit anything I can get my hands on," and added that the value of the forfeiture has to be at least equal to the cost of the proceeding against the owner.