For easier reading, I'll summarize my live blogging here, with edits, and some after-the-fact commentary in italics.

The hearing opened with Rep. Debra Hilstrom declaring the goal of the meeting to be to be "... to be sure this never happens again."

Jim Nobles, the Legislative Auditor, testified first. "A deeply disappointing and disturbing story with the actions of some overshadowing the good..."

Nobles told the legislature that they will have to "consider the organizational structure [they] put in place in 2005."

"The problems, from the first day we walked in the door, were obvious....[We found] a building that was not adequately secured...[and] thousands of dollars of cash...[The legislative auditor's] staff spent days counting the cash that was on hand."

"We had some level of concern that there was some cash that was not coming in the door." This is the only point at which the allegation is raised that some seized cash may have been retained by officers. It is not present in Nobles' report, and in his testimony to follow, former AUSA Luger denies having found any evidence of this during his investigation

Nobles rebutted the assertion, publicized by the media, that some or most of the missing cars had been found. He said that he had details available for representatives that wanted them.

Nobles said that 29 vehicles were transferred to "Cars with Heart." Nobles noted that Cars with Heart is not a charity, despite its name, and is nothing more than a used car lot. "Sloppy work on the part of the gang strike force...."

Nobles referred to a bunch of stuff "accumulating in a so-called evidence room … we saw little evidence that the materials that were accumulated would withstand [scrutiny] under trial. ... not properly accounted for and secured"

Nobles said, "We decided not to conduct an investigation of individuals." In response to later questioning regarding the subpoena power held by the Legislative Auditor, Nobles made it clear that he wanted to limit the scope of his report in the interest of a) getting it completed in a timely manner, b) sticking to the financial and control aspects of the matter since these are the core competencies of the legislative auditor's office, and c) providing a starting point for investigation of individuals by relevant law enforcement agencies.

Nobles said, "Commander Ryan had sold one of the TVs to an intern for $30. The person from whom that TV was seized came to the strike force and wanted the TV back. Therefore, the TV had to be returned. … When we tested notices, we could not find documentation for 202 notices out of 545 cash seizures....that caused us to have concern that the rights of citzens were not being upheld." Nobles is referring to the notices that must be served on people whose goods await forfeiture. These notices provide an inventory of the materials seized and outline the process necessary to contest forfeiture. As an auditor, Nobles is approaching this on a “test” basis where his staff was trying to validate, or “test,” the presence of supporting documentation showing that the process was followed correctly.

"There was a good deal of misbehavior and a lack of good management at the Gang Strike Force."

Nobles spoke regarding oversight. "... it is the board itself that bears the greatest responsibility." Recall that the Gang Strike Force was supervised by the Metro Gang Strike Force Advisory Board, which in turn received some degree of oversight and financial sponsorship from the the Minnesota Gang and Drug Oversight Council. The council's primary purpose is to appropriate funds among the various “strike forces” statewide, numbering approximately 20. Beyond establishing some voluntary best practices and controlling annual budgets, it's not clear that the council has much practical authority. The advisory board, on the other hand, was nominally the reporting point for the commander of the force. I have been unable to find a list of its members, though news reports list Bud Shaver, chief of the West St. Paul PD, as its chair.

Speaking again of the Gang Strike Force itself, Nobles said, "What we saw, in our view, was an organization that did not clearly have a [???] towards prosecution. From what we saw,... we didn't see a strong connection between the work of the Gang Strike Force and efforts at prosecution."

"We were coming into the Gang Strike Force when it was at a point of transition from Commander Ryan to Commander Omodt.... Commander Omodt was very concerned about what he found when he walked in the door, as were we.... [He] received a great deal of pushback from [individual officers]."

Paymar asked questions regarding board meetings and the awareness that the board might have had.

Nobles said he briefed the board at his first meeting and noted that the board was aware of problems. "There was a reluctance on the part of board members to confront Commander Ryan .... these issues were known, they were long-standing, they were persistent, but they were not addressed."

Nobles noted that the board was instrumental in asking Campion to encourage a review by Nobles' office.

"There was a large accumulation of vehicles that the Gang Strike Force had seized," about 100, Nobles said. He spoke regarding a stump grinder and wood chipper given to Cars with Heart. "I don't know that that's involved in criminal and gang activity." I'm not sure at what point in his testimony it appeared, but Nobles painted a picture of the seized cars posing a genuine problem for the Strike Force, noting that they were impounded at a variety of locations, and that some lacked titles (presumably because formal forfeiture proceedings had not been conducted).

Nobles spoke at some length in defense of Commissioner Campion, noting that Campion initially requested the review. It would be interesting to know more about the chain of events that led to the review. According to another blogger who covered the tail end of the event after I left, Campion said that it was a call from the bookkeeper at the RCSO to the DPS that started the process. Nobles' testimony might lead some to conclude that the advisory board was aware of problems long before that point.

Lesch asked a question regarding the ratio of materials taken unlawfully. Nobles noted that there wasn't enough documentation to determine this, but said, "Some of the material that was brought in simply wasn't eligible for forfeiture ... because it didn't fit the categories that the law provides."

Question from Sen. Higgens regarding whether the legislative auditor has subpoena power. Nobles said, "I decided that we were going to keep this within the bounds of an audit, which looks at control and compliance," and went on to say that he referred any additional investigation to the FBI.

Nobles said, "you have here ... a stand-alone police organization. ... It seemed untethered to any organizational structure, and only loosely tethered to the advisory board." Nobles noted that any disciplinary problems were referred back to the officer's home agency.

Paymar said, "did you examine the correlation of arrests or the number of arrests vis a vis prosecutions to determine that the actual police work was effective?" Nobles replied that this question was beyond the scope of the audit.

Testimony from Andy Luger:

Luger's testimony was much less interesting than Noble's simply because Luger, a former AUSA, was adept at answering questions by speaking verbatim or nearly so from the report he had already submitted. On the other hand, Luger's report does not mince words, and is much harder-hitting than Nobles'. If you haven't read through it, you should.

"conduct that was appalling and outrageous.... Egregious misconduct took place at the strike force."

"We made it clear to [Campion] that our work would be independent."

"... others, perhaps about 10 or so, lost their way and engaged in conduct that would never be tolerated at their home agencies."

"Because of the dismal recordkeeping of the strike force, .... there are many items that should be in the evidence room, that are simply missing."

"we cannot overstate how poorly documented the strike force's operations were"

The balance of Luger's opening remarks were clearly taken verbatim from his report.

Question about why the GSF is different from other LE agencies...

Luger replied noting the close supervision and close interaction with prosecuting attorneys.

Both in his report and in his testimony, Luger makes it clear that he believes close monitoring of law enforcement by prosecuting attorneys is a cure for all ills, a view shared by Rep. Lesch (who is not coincidentally the prosecuting attorney for the city of St. Paul).

Sen. Moua asked about shredding of documents. Luger replied citing his report.

Sen. Moua asked about use of confidential informants, their credibility, whether they exist.

Rep. Kohl asked about recommendation to discontinue use of multi-jurisdictional task forces and asked How multi-jurisdictional matters should be handled. Luger replied, "There are three models that make sense to us. First, a model based on cooperation .... you have a BCA or somewhere else that coordinates information... if you can have a mechanism at the BCA or elsewhere where everyone who is working on gang related crimes .... can come and share information.... [so] prosecutions can be coordinated.... [Second], smaller versions of what was done here. You can have a multi-jurisdictional agency that is housed at a particular agency.... The third is to have something literally housed at a statewide agency.... the delineation of who's in charge, who's accountable [is clearer and determined up front]"

Rep. Lesch - Question about ratio of extralegal to lawful seizures. Luger replied that he did not know because they focused on case files that were believed to be problematic and therefore had a skewed sample.

Rep. Lesch - Question on whether Luger's intention is to have the legislature review forfeiture laws or also the broader matter of seizures. "The core of that recommendation comes from the saturation details ...." Example of officers seizing thousands of dollars cash on the tenuous grounds that a marijuana cigarette was found in a nearby pocket of a suspect. "Technically under the law, as written, those seizures... can be made." Luger went on to say that his recommendation was that the legislature review forfeiture law, and said on two occasions that they had considered conducting a comparative survey of forfeiture laws in the 50 states. It is at this point unclear whether Minnesota's forfeiture law is broader than that of other, similar states. What is clear is that law enforcement and prosecuting attorneys want to keep the status quo at the statutory level, and as such, they are painting the Gang Strike Force abuses as abuses of discretion and failures of oversight rather than statutory problems with the forfeiture law itself.

In response to another question from Lesch, Luger spoke at greater length about the value of having a prosecutor on site to keep investigations and police activity focused on prosecutions.

Rep. Paymar - question on whether restoration of funding caused seizures and forfeitures to drop. Luger cited a "depression-era mentality,” words he used in his written report. "What happened here was a passionate view .... that they ... had to protect their money.... The mentality and the mindset is what led to the focus on forfeitures." Responding specifically to the question, Luger noted that the seizures went up when the funding was restored.

Question came from Paymar whether forfeiture funding to departments should be eliminated entirely. Luger replied, "It is common ... for agencies to have their funding supplanted to some degree by forfeitures.... We're recommending that it not be a significant part" Again Luger makes the case for the status quo. The adoption of expansive forfeiture laws is a relatively recent (1980s) phenomenon, and abuses have not been limited to the Gang Strike Force or the state of Minnesota. The folks over at http://www.fear.org have an entire website and organization devoted to the topic, and it's well worth reading.

"When we questioned advisory board members about some of the activity that we found, they were deeply disturbed. They never condoned the conduct we found..... The information that came out of our report was not [previously] disclosed to them. ... they were not given answers that... were accurate."

Question "are there crimes that were committed?" Luger replied, "... If you take something, if you're a police officer or not, ... and you take it home for your personal use, that is a crime. We believe that went on here.... It's beyond bad police procedures. It was deeply disturbing, and it went on for many years."

"There were case files that were highly professional ... that contained information that case files in a criminal matter should contain ... those were the cases that were referred for prosecution.... It points out the large number of files that led nowhere."

Sen. Higgins - "These people should have the public trust.... possibly certain groups of employees, people in the pubic eye... did you think about the fact that this is corrupt behavior, not only disturbing .... downright corruption." Luger replied, "The evidence that we were able to gather showed that the misconduct that we found was of a nature that can be criminal and it is egregious. Terms that we used. We did not come across any evidence in our review of an officer taking money from an individual and putting it in their pocket.... "We had no evidence of any individual taking money for themselves. Obviously we described ... individuals taking property home for their own benefit."

Rep. Tony Cornish - question and comment supporting seizure laws, notes that in his view the problem is abuse of discretion not a problem with the law. Astute readers will note that Rep. Cornish has enjoyed a lengthy law enforcement career and is presently police chief of Lake Crystal. He was named “legislator of the year” by the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers' Association last week. Luger replied, "My experience, working with law enforcement, is that people exercise good judgement and discretion. Our laws are broad, though, and they are subject to abuse, and that concerned us. .... Our recommendation is not that the legislature should change the law. .... Is there something that can be done to tweak the law to prevent this kind of abuse, without over prescribing. "

Cornish went on to say that LE should be properly funded by the legislature if seizures are removed as a source of funding.

Sen Moua - question regarding profiling. Luger referred to his report.

Nobles - "If there were the proper supervision, would the law work? This extends to the rights of citizens..... We test 545 cases and 202 [people did not receive notices]... If he isn't served a legal notice that he has a legal right to contest that seizure.... if you're never even given notice of your rights...."

Rep. Haws - question - Luger - "some of the people from whom money was taken were undocumented aliens.... we have a handful of complaints but not a pile."

I left the hearing at this point due to other commitments. The best transcription I have found of the brief testimony from Campion and Bushman is here, and appears to focus primarily on what to do with the seized materials and funds, and the now unspent appropriations to the Metro Gang Strike Force for the balance of the year.

I see that Randy Furst over at the strib has just posted the Cliff Notes version: http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/55138252.html . To his credit he correctly identified the forfeiture statute as the next key issue.