Introduced
by
To establish that property seized from a person because it may be associated with a suspected drug-related crime is not subject to “civil asset forfeiture” unless the individual is actually convicted or accepts a plea bargain. This would not apply to police seizures of property worth $50,000 or more. The bill also authorizes a process allowing individuals who have lower value property seized to just give it up, and revises procedural details for reimbursement claims by a person with an ownership interest in the seized property (for example the issuer of a vehicle loan).
Referred to the Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety
Reported without amendment
With the recommendation that the bill pass.
Passed in the Senate 36 to 2
Referred to the Committee on Judiciary
Reported without amendment
Without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
Amendment offered
by
To revise a detail regarding forfeiture actions where the owner or a person with an interest in the seized property withdraws their claims to it.
The amendment failed by voice vote
Passed in the House 107 to 3 (details)
To establish that property seized from a person because it may be associated with a crime is not subject to “civil asset forfeiture” unless the individual is actually convicted or accepts a plea bargain, subject various exceptions and conditions. (Exceptions include different procedures for persons with an ownership interest in the property who were not involved with the crime; cases where the offender has absconded to another state; and more.) This would not apply to police seizures of property worth $50,000 or more. See also House Bills 4001 and 4002.
Passed in the Senate 38 to 0 (details)
To concur with the House-passed version of the bill.
