House Status:
Senate Status:
Senate Status:
Minutes for HB2648 - Committee on Judiciary
Short Title
Requiring a criminal conviction for civil asset forfeiture, remitting proceeds from civil asset forfeiture to the state general fund and removing provisions making motor vehicles with altered vehicle identification numbers contraband.
Minutes Content for Wed, Feb 16, 2022
Chairperson Patton opened the hearing on HB2648 . Natalie Scott provided an overview of the bill. She stood for questions. (Attachment 1)
Proponent
Sam MacRoberts explained the government seizes property when the property has committed or been involved in an offense. It then becomes the responsibility of the original property owner to get it back. HB2648 is trying to put the responsibility back on the government to prove it's necessary to seize in the first place. 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. Mr. MacRoberts stood for questions. (Attachment 2)
Jon Lueth stated civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to seize property if it allegedly was used in a crime or derived from a crime without the need to charge, let alone convict, a person of a criminal offense. The property owner or possessor, not the government, bears the burden of proving their property is innocent of any crime. This flips the principles of “innocent until proven guilty” on its head. Mr. Lueth explained there needs to be a proper due process taking place before property is seized. Mr. Lueth stood for questions. (Attachment 3)
Jenna Bottler testified, as a proponent, by giving national perspective of the disproportionate amount of seizures from minorities and indigent individuals. Ms. Bottler said states across the country have begun to reform forfeiture practices to ensure that innocent citizens do not have their property unjustly taken from them. Since 2014, thirty-six states have passed some sort of reform. Ms. Bottler stood for questions. (Attachment 4)
Proponent Written
Currie Myers Sheriff (retired), Consultant, Americans for Prosperity (Attachment 5)
Joshua Ney, County Attorney, Jefferson County (Attachment 6)
Opponent
Sarah Washburn explained civil asset forfeiture is a valuable tool that the Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP) utilizes to disrupt criminal enterprises of every type and size. This includes illegitimate interstate business involved in the trafficking of drugs or people for labor or sex, and those businesses that involve individuals operating illegally on a much smaller scale. Kansas law enforcement personnel are highly trained and adept at thwarting the efforts of those individuals who are using Kansas roadways to further businesses based on illegal acts, this includes narcotics trafficking, money laundering, and human trafficking, to name only a few. Ms. Washburn's written testimony has good examples of how this law helps KHP. She explained she is directly involved in processing the civil forfeitures and said KHP does follow the law. She feels there are procedures in place with the current statute that protects innocent citizens. She stood for questions. (Attachment 7)
Lee McGrath explained HB2648 maintains Kansas' two-track process of criminal prosecutions and civil forfeitures. In doing so, the bill does not address the real problem; approximately 80% of owners of seized property do not engage in civil litigation. Property owners face a complex, costly civil process that deals with relatively low-valued property. The median currency forfeiture in Kansas is only $2,591. In most cases, that amount is less than the cost of hiring a lawyer. Facing this reality, Kansans wisely do not pursue litigation in civil court. Instead, they default! As such, the bill's benefit of a conviction prerequisite is unrealized because the civil case is ended by the property owner's default. Mr. McGrath respectfully recognizes the good intentions of the proponents, but asks you to oppose HB2648. Instead, please support HB2640. He stood for questions. (Attachment 8)
Sheriff Jeff Easter explained the process for seizure lies within in two separate courts of law. It is followed by law enforcement across Kansas. If probable cause exists, a piece of property is seized because it has been used for criminal activity. As a result, the law enforcement agency can file seizure through the District Attorney or County Attorney. Either of these entities can file the seizure or choose not to file the seizure. 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 and all other civil cases. The current law should not be changed for just civil forfeiture. Sheriff Easter stood for questions. (Attachment 9)
John Goodyear began his testimony stating he had two points he wanted to explain to the membership. HB2648 would require seized property, likely to have been used in criminal activity, to be returned. Further, the bill will dramatically increase the length of storage time for many seized assets. It can take months, or even years for cases to go to trial. If law enforcement agencies are required to hold this property until a conviction occurs, the increased storage time necessitated by the HB2648 will result in increased costs. Finally, HB2648 would direct the proceeds from disposition of forfeited assets to the state general fund without regard to the costs to the law enforcement entities that seize and store the materials. This has the effect of creating a substantial unfunded mandate to all law enforcement agencies in the state. Mr. Goodyear stood for questions. (Attachment 10)
Chief Darrell Atteberry stated that the previous speakers had touched on the points of his testimony. He wanted to add, as a practical matter, requiring a criminal conviction before a forfeiture proceeding can take place is not a rational or logical policy decision. For these reasons the Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police is opposed to HB2648. Chief Atteberry stood for questions. (Attachment 11)
Ed Klumpp explained the purpose of civil and criminal forfeitures is so law enforcement agencies may utilize the ability to seize assets of ill-gotten gains from illegal criminal enterprises with the hope of disrupting the enterprise and bettering communities in Kansas. Mr. Klumpp also explained that monetary civil forfeitures are used for undercover drug purchases vs using taxpayer money. Mr. Klumpp stood for questions. (Attachment 12)
Greg Smith reviewed a number of reasons he and his organization are opposed to HB2648. 1) Asset forfeiture exists to build cases against those who commit crimes that cause widespread damage; in particular the distribution of illegal drugs and human trafficking. The removal of this tool will hamper law enforcement efforts to combat these crimes. Both crimes are prevalent in Kansas. 2) HB2459 provided a mechanism to make sure law enforcement followed asset forfeiture laws. We know of no abuses of the laws. 3) Asset forfeiture is a civil proceeding in court. No other civil proceeding requires a criminal conviction for it to proceed. 4) In past, Legislative hearings on asset forfeiture, claims were made that law enforcement agencies conduct asset forfeiture actions to get money for their departments with no accountability. This is absolutely false. Law enforcement can only use the funds for specific purposes (KSA 60-4117); however, this bill would move the money to the state general fund with no restrictions on how the funds are used. Mr. Smith stood for questions. (Attachment 13)
Opponent Written
Robert Jacobs, Executive Officer, Kansas Bureau of Investigation (Attachment 14)
Captain Travis Rakestraw, Wichita Police Department, City of Wichita (Attachment 15)
Steve Kearney, Executive Director, Kansas County and District Attorney's Association (Attachment 16)
Chairperson Patton closed the hearing on HB2648.
