I’m not a fan of Otter’s veto! This is assuming that law enforcement is incapable of having crooks. And we well know that this is happening in other states. Why is Idaho exempt? Via LMT:
CIVIL FORFEITURE REFORMS
In his veto letter, Otter argued that he’s not aware of any allegations that Idaho’s law enforcement officers are inappropriately seizing citizen property – thereby declaring HB 202 a solution in search of a problem.
Supporters of the bill disagree. Representatives with the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho point out that the proposal would have created reporting requirements for law enforcement agencies on forfeited property to help point out potential areas of abuse. The measure also would have forbid police from seizing cash or property simply because it was in close proximity to an illegal substance. Agencies would need judicial approval to keep forfeited assets.
States across the county have been scrutinizing their forfeiture laws as civil liberties groups and others have highlighted abuses where police raked in cash and property despite hazy connections to a purported crime.
However, critics counter that the state should trust law enforcement agencies.
“It is my view that it is right and proper for drug dealers to have a healthy fear of losing their personal assets if they are caught breaking the law,” Otter wrote.