Can a Washington police agency use seized asset-forfeiture money to pay for CALEA or WASPC accreditation and the training those programs require?

Plain-English summary

Senator Pam Roach asked whether Washington police departments could use state asset-forfeiture money to pay accreditation fees through CALEA (the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies) and WASPC (the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs), plus the training those programs require. AG McKenna's answer split by which forfeiture statute supplied the money.

For proceeds retained under RCW 10.105.010, the general felony forfeiture statute, the answer was yes. The statute lets the seizing agency use net proceeds "exclusively for the expansion and improvement of law enforcement activity." Accreditation and the training that supports it fall comfortably within "improvement" because the whole point of the accreditation programs is to enhance law enforcement quality. Two limits applied: each program had to actually expand or improve the agency's law enforcement activity (not every accreditation does), and the spending could not "supplant preexisting funding sources." The agency could not just shift existing budget items into forfeiture funding to free up regular money for other things.

For proceeds retained under three more restrictive forfeiture statutes, the answer was generally no. RCW 69.50.505(10) (controlled substances), RCW 9A.83.030(6) (money laundering, which cross-refers to RCW 69.50.505), and RCW 9.46.231(8) (gambling) all confine net proceeds to expansion and improvement of the specific law enforcement area: "controlled substances related law enforcement activity," for example. AGO 1995 No. 11 had previously read that language to authorize spending only when there was a "close connection" to the underlying enforcement area. CALEA and WASPC accreditation are general law enforcement programs, not specifically connected to drug, money-laundering, or gambling enforcement, so the restricted forfeiture funds could not pay for them. The same limits applied to associated training, except where a particular training had a close connection to the relevant enforcement area, and even then only if the spending did not supplant existing funding.

The opinion cautioned that nothing in the analysis endorsed any particular accreditation program. Each agency had to evaluate, on its own facts, whether the program it was considering would actually improve or expand law enforcement activity within the meaning of the statute.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2010. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

What is "net proceeds" under these forfeiture statutes?
Under RCW 10.105.010 and RCW 9.46.231, "net proceeds" was defined as the value of the forfeitable interest after deducting bona fide security interests and (for sold property) sale costs. RCW 69.50.505 used the same baseline plus an additional deduction for valid landlord damage claims under that statute's subsection (15).

What does "supplant" mean in this context?
"Supplant" means to use the forfeiture money in place of money that the agency was already spending on the same purpose. If a department was already paying for training out of its general fund, swapping in forfeiture money so the general-fund money could be reallocated would supplant. Adding training that the agency would not otherwise have funded does not supplant.

Did this opinion say drug-forfeiture funds can never pay for any training that is not strictly drug-enforcement?
No. The opinion adopted the AGO 1995 No. 11 "close connection" test. A general accreditation program could include training modules with a close connection to drug enforcement, and those specific modules could be paid for from drug-forfeiture proceeds even if the broader accreditation program could not.

Did the opinion address federal asset forfeiture?
No. The questions concerned state forfeiture funds. Federal forfeiture funds (through equitable sharing, etc.) operate under their own federal restrictions independent of these state statutes.

Why did the opinion treat the four forfeiture statutes differently?
Because the legislature wrote them differently. The general felony statute (RCW 10.105.010) authorizes spending for "expansion and improvement of law enforcement activity." The drug, money-laundering, and gambling statutes narrow that to expansion and improvement of the specific subject-area enforcement. The opinion read those narrower words as meaningful: when the legislature limits a fund to a specific purpose, the spending must connect to that purpose.

Background and statutory framework

Washington's forfeiture-and-retention scheme is split across statutes. RCW 10.105 generally governs forfeiture of property involved in felonies, with specific exceptions in RCW 10.105.900. The carved-out areas include controlled substances (RCW 69.50.505), money laundering (RCW 9A.83.030, which incorporates RCW 69.50.505 by reference), and gambling (RCW 9.46.231).

The general retention rule in RCW 10.105.010 lets seizing agencies keep "net proceeds . . . exclusively for the expansion and improvement of law enforcement activity," with the express prohibition on supplanting preexisting funding. The narrower retention rules in the subject-specific statutes confine spending to "controlled substances related law enforcement activity" or "gambling-related law enforcement activity," with parallel anti-supplanting clauses.

The "close connection" doctrine comes from AGO 1995 No. 11, the AG's earlier reading of the drug-forfeiture statute. The 2010 opinion confirmed that the doctrine still controls and extended it to the money-laundering and gambling statutes.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- RCW 10.105.010 (general felony forfeiture)
- RCW 10.105.900 (exclusions from RCW 10.105)
- RCW 69.50.505, .505(10) (controlled substances forfeiture)
- RCW 9A.83.030, .030(6) (money laundering forfeiture)
- RCW 9.46.231, .231(8) (gambling forfeiture)

Cases:
- State v. Sullivan, 143 Wn.2d 162, 19 P.3d 1012 (2001) (plain-meaning rule)
- American Legion Post 32 v. City of Walla Walla, 116 Wn.2d 1, 802 P.2d 784 (1991) (ordinary meaning, dictionary aid)

Earlier AG opinion:
- AGO 1995 No. 11 (close-connection test under RCW 69.50.505)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/use-asset-forfeiture-funds-accreditation-and-reaccreditation-law-enforcement-agencies

Original opinion text

Attorney General Rob McKenna

LAW ENFORCEMENT—LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES—Use Of Asset Forfeiture Funds For Accreditation And Reaccreditation Of Law Enforcement Agencies

Law enforcement agencies can use the net proceeds of asset forfeitures under RCW 10.105.010 for accreditation, reaccreditation, and necessary associated training which serves to improve law enforcement activity, provided that such funding does not supplant existing funding sources. However, assets forfeited pursuant to other statutes for which the use of funds is more tightly restricted can only be used for accreditation and training purposes, if the subject matter is closely related to the purposes of the applicable forfeiture statute.

January 6, 2010

The Honorable Pam Roach
Senator, District 31
PO Box 40431
Olympia, WA 98504-0431

Cite As:
AGO 2010 No. 1

Dear Senator Roach:

By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested our opinion on a question we have summarized and paraphrased as follows:

Can law enforcement agencies use state asset forfeiture funds for accreditation and/or reaccreditation fees and for the training that such accreditation requires?

BRIEF ANSWER

Law enforcement agencies can use state asset forfeiture funds obtained under RCW 10.105.010 for accreditation, reaccreditation, and necessary associated training which serves to improve law enforcement activity, provided that such funding does not supplant existing funding sources. However, any accreditation, reaccreditation, or necessary associated training that does not serve to improve or expand law enforcement activity would not be eligible for funding under RCW 10.105.010. Furthermore, state asset forfeiture funds obtained by a law enforcement agency under RCW 69.50.505 (governing forfeitures related to controlled substances), RCW 9A.83.030 (governing forfeitures associated with money laundering), and RCW 9.46.231 (governing forfeitures associated with gambling laws) cannot be used to fund accreditation or reaccreditation. Such proceeds would likewise be unavailable for training required for accreditation unless (a) there is a close connection between a given training and enforcing controlled substances laws for purposes of RCW 69.50.505 and RCW 9A.83.030, or gambling laws for purposes of RCW 9.46.231; and (b) the funding would not supplant existing funding sources.

BACKGROUND

Your letter explains accreditation and associated training as follows:

Many police departments are accredited through the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA), the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) and/or other organizations. The process to receive accreditation usually consists of an intensive review of policies and procedures, inspection of the department and facilities, interviewing staff and public officials, and holding public hearings to take comment.

The fees associated with accreditation and reaccreditation cover technical materials and training publications; assistance from staff of the credentialing agency to guide departments in the development and implementation of policies and procedures; on-site assessments; software designed to support department self-assessment; and registration for meetings where department personnel receive training on state-of-the-art law enforcement practices.

ANALYSIS

Your question relates to several different forfeiture statutes which allow law enforcement agencies to forfeit property connected with certain criminal activity and to retain some net proceeds of forfeited property for particular purposes. With certain exceptions identified in RCW 10.105.900, RCW 10.105 governs forfeiture of property involved in felonies. One main exception is for property associated with violations of controlled substances laws, which is governed by RCW 69.50.505. Other exceptions include property associated with money laundering as described in RCW 9A.83.030(6), and property associated with violations of gambling laws as described in RCW 9.46.231. These statutes are addressed in turn below.

We first address forfeiture funds under RCW 10.105. RCW 10.105.010 provides in relevant part:

[N]et proceeds not required to be paid to the state treasurer, or otherwise required to be spent under [RCW 10.105.010], shall be retained by the seizing law enforcement agency exclusively for the expansion and improvement of law enforcement activity. Money retained under this section may not be used to supplant preexisting funding sources.

RCW 10.105.010(c) (emphasis added).

In considering your question, we are guided by the plain language of the statute itself. When a statute is unambiguous, its meaning must be derived from the plain language of the statute alone. State v. Sullivan, 143 Wn.2d 162, 175, 19 P.3d 1012 (2001). When the legislature has not defined statutory terms, and where no contrary intent is evident in the statute, statutory terms are given their common and ordinary meaning. American Legion Post 32 v. City of Walla Walla, 116 Wn.2d 1, 8, 802 P.2d 784 (1991). Dictionaries can be used to help determine such meaning. Id. at 8. As explained above, net proceeds retained by the seizing law enforcement agency pursuant to RCW 10.105 can only be used for the expansion and improvement of law enforcement activity. The dictionary defines "expansion," in relevant part, as "the act or process of increasing the extent, size, number, volume, or scope." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 798 (2002). "Improvement" is defined, in relevant part, as the "enhancement or augmentation of value or quality." Webster's at 1138.

We conclude that accreditation and reaccreditation, such as that offered by CALEA and WASPC, and necessary associated training, falls squarely within the purpose of improving law enforcement activity. This is because the purpose of such accreditation is typically to enhance or augment the value or quality of law enforcement. We do not, however, mean to suggest that all accreditation, reaccreditation, and necessary associated training programs can be funded under RCW 10.105.010 without limitation. First, to be funded out of proceeds retained by a seizing law enforcement agency under RCW 10.105.010(7), any accreditation, reaccreditation, or associated training would have to expand or improve law enforcement activity. Whether a particular program satisfies this requirement would have to be evaluated on an individual basis. Additionally, this funding cannot supplant preexisting funding sources. RCW 10.105.010(7)(c).

Although your inquiry does not specify the nature of the criminal activity that gives rise to the forfeited property, the legislature has put more specific constraints on certain kinds of state asset forfeiture funds. As noted above, RCW 10.105 does not apply to property forfeited under these statutes. See RCW 10.105.900. The statutes include RCW 69.50.505, relating to property associated with violations of controlled substances laws. It states:

[N]et proceeds not required to be paid to the state treasurer shall be retained by the seizing law enforcement agency exclusively for the expansion and improvement of controlled substances related law enforcement activity. Money retained under this section may not be used to supplant preexisting funding sources.

RCW 69.50.505(10) (emphasis added). Disposition of forfeited property under RCW 9A.83.030, which addresses property associated with money laundering, is also governed by RCW 69.50.505(10), and thus the same restrictions apply. See RCW 9A.83.030(6). And finally, funds from forfeiture of property associated with gambling activity are subject to a scheme similar to controlled substance forfeitures, whereby:

The seizing law enforcement agency shall retain . . . net proceeds exclusively for the expansion and improvement of gambling-related law enforcement activity. Money retained under this section may not be used to supplant preexisting funding sources.

RCW 9.46.231(8) (emphasis added).

In AGO 1995 No. 11, we opined that RCW 69.50.505 does not restrict the use of drug forfeiture proceeds to law enforcement activities that are related exclusively to controlled substances. AGO 1995 No. 11, at 1–2. Rather, reviewing the plain language of the statute and ordinary definitions of the terms, we concluded that the language now found in RCW 69.50.505(10) authorizes use of drug forfeiture proceeds for law enforcement activities having a "close connection" to enforcing controlled substances laws. AGO 1995 No. 11, at 3. Further, we explained that these funds would not be available for "general law enforcement activities having no significant relationship to enforcing controlled substances laws." AGO 1995 No. 11, at 3.

We do not discern the existence of a "close connection" between enforcement of controlled substances or gambling laws and accreditation by organizations like CALEA and WASPC. Instead, accreditation by such organizations falls into the category of improving general law enforcement activities which may be beneficial to overall law enforcement objectives. Thus, net proceeds from forfeitures retained by seizing agencies under RCW 69.50.505, RCW 9A.83.030, and RCW 9.46.231 are not available for funding general accreditation and reaccreditation through organizations like CALEA and WASPC. Such proceeds would likewise be unavailable for training required for accreditation unless (a) there is a close connection between a given training and enforcing controlled substances laws for purposes of RCW 69.50.505 and RCW 9A.83.030, or gambling laws for purposes of RCW 9.46.231; and (b) the funding would not supplant existing funding sources.

Finally, this opinion should not be read as an endorsement of any particular accreditation organization. Each accreditation program should be individually evaluated by the law enforcement agency considering devoting resources to accreditation.

We trust that the foregoing will be useful to you.

ROB MCKENNA
Attorney General

MELISSA P. ROURKE
Assistant Attorney General
360-586-4637