House Status:
Senate Status:
Senate Status:
Minutes for HB2380 - Committee on Judiciary
Short Title
Requiring a criminal conviction for civil asset forfeiture, remitting proceeds from civil asset forfeiture to the state general fund, increasing the burden of proof required to forfeit property, making certain property ineligible for forfeiture, providing persons involved in forfeiture proceedings representation by counsel and the ability to demand a jury trial and allowing a person to request a hearing on whether forfeiture is excessive.
Minutes Content for Wed, Feb 15, 2023
Chairperson Patton opened the hearing on HB2380. Natalie Scott (Attachment 1) provided an explanation of the Bill Brief.
Lindsay Archer, Legislative Research, provided a current Civil Asset Forfeiture Report for the membership. (Attachment 16)
Proponent
Mike O’Neal (Attachment 2) stated last year he was able to brief the Committee on the need for civil asset forfeiture reform. This session, he urged the Committee to take action. It is time. Mr. O'Neal stated he would defer the details that need to be changed to Sam MacRoberts.
Sam MacRoberts (Attachment 3) stated there are at least four core problems with Kansas’ asset forfeiture regime. First, the law incentivizes profit-based policing. Second, the law disregards property rights and due process considerations. Third, it facilitates government overreach and abuse. Fourth, it doesn’t afford a jury trial. HB2380 attempts to address each of these concerns in a reasonable fashion. Mr. MacRoberts provides details on each problem in his attached written testimony. Mr. MacRoberts said this bill is a good-faith attempt at increasing governmental accountability, strengthening protections for innocent Kansans from potential government overreach, and minimizing asset forfeiture’s biggest problems. He stood for questions.
Jon Lueth (Attachment 4) explained HB2380 presents an opportunity for the Kansas Legislature to ensure this extraordinary power provided to law enforcement is used for its intended purpose. This legislation will not take away law enforcement’s ability to seize property connected with or involved in crime and will only require them to wait until after a criminal conviction has been secured to forfeit any property they have seized. The group, American's For Prosperity of Kansas, believe these reforms are vital to protect innocent property owners and ensure law enforcement can focus on their core mission of preventing and solving violent crime. The legislature and local governments should fully fund law enforcement agencies so that they do not feel compelled to act as tax collectors to keep our communities safe. They hope that the committee will promptly advance this legislation to the full House and allow them to consider this important issue. Mr. Lueth stood for questions.
Written Proponent
John Pollock, Coordinator, National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel (Attachment 5)
Mike Fonkert, Kansas Appleseed Center for Law and Justice (Attachment 6)
Retired Sheriff Curie Myers, Johnson County Sheriff's Office (Attachment 7)
Opponent
Sheriff David Groves (Attachment 8) explained this bill calls for a conviction to be able to start the process of forfeiture. The current process that law enforcement across Kansas has to follow for seizure lies within two separate courts of law. First, is within in State of Kansas Criminal law. If probable cause exists that a piece of property is seized due to it being possessed as a result of ill-gotten means from criminal activity, then the law enforcement agency can request the District or County Attorney initiate seizure proceedings. If the choice is made to not file the seizure, the property will be given back to the person it was seized from. If the decision is made to seize the property then the civil case proceeds to a hearing/trial in front of a judge who then renders a decision. This process has judicial review just like in criminal cases and all other civil cases. Sheriff Groves reviewed many reason why this bill if problematic for Law Enforcement Officers and organizations that support them. He stood for questions.
John Goodyear (Attachment 9) stated HB2380, as drafted, presents a number of material changes to the asset forfeiture procedure that was revamped by this Legislature as recently as 2018. In doing so, the bill often creates more questions than answers. The League of Kansas Municipalities is opposed to HB2380 and would ask that the Committee not recommend it favorably. Mr. Goodyear stood for questions.
Sarah Washburn on behalf of Col. Herman Jones (Attachment 10) explained she believes the Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP) process for asset forfeiture is already very fair. Civil asset forfeiture is a valuable tool that the KHP utilizes to disrupt criminal enterprises of every type and size. This includes illegitimate interstate businesses involved in everything from the movement of illicit drugs and drug proceeds to trafficking people for labor or sex. They perform extensive investigations and return otherwise forfeitable property when the seizure and forfeiture is less than the potential risk to the property interest of innocent owners. KHP sincerely thanks members of this ommittee for their consideration of our testimony, and we ask that they oppose HB2380. Ms. Washburn stood for questions.
Robert Jacobs (Attachment 11) stated that many of the questions previously posed is answered in his testimony so he began by addressing those questions and issues. Mr. Jacobs explained asset forfeiture occurs through a separate civil process, which is overseen through the judicial system. The court process for promulgating forfeiture is a balanced approach to address criminal activity while still protecting the rights of those individuals whose property has been seized and is subject to forfeiture. Mr. Jacobs recommend a language change which is outlined in his attached testimony. He stood for questions.
Written Opponent
Michael Koss, Deputy City Attorney, City of Overland Park (Attachment 12)
Chief John Lamb, Junction City PD (Attachment 13)
Amanda Stanley, City Attorney - City of Topeka (Attachment 14)
Chairperson Patton closed the hearing on HB2380.
