Find Bill
Find Your Legislator
Legislative Deadlines
March 29, 2024
RSS Feed Permanent URL -A +A

Minutes for HB2640 - Committee on Judiciary

Short Title

Creating a new process for criminal forfeiture of property with a value of less than $100,000 that is used in the commission of certain crimes or is proceeds derived from certain crimes.

Minutes Content for Wed, Feb 16, 2022

Chairperson Patton opened the hearing on HB2640 . Natalie Scott provided an overview of the bill. She stood for questions. (Attachment 17)

Proponent

Representative Dan Osman explained HB2640 converts a civil to a criminal asset forfeiture. It means that personal property can’t be seized unless its incident to a lawful arrest. They become tied together. It also means a court that has jurisdiction over a criminal case and the related forfeiture proceeding. This allows for the criminal court to take care of both issues either simultaneously or concurrently, saving both time and resources. HB2640 allows defendants to maintain their constitutional right to counsel; both for them and their property. Finally, it requires all property seized to go into the state’s general fund and not directly to law enforcement. Representative Osman stood for questions. (Attachment 18)

Lee McGrath testified in support of HB2640 saying that like other states that have merged civil and criminal prosecution; it uses the right process and it focuses on the property of ordinary Kansans. Is is exempting them from the state's civil forfeiture process that was enacted to address the activity of organized crime, particularly those operating offshore. Mr. McGrath stood for questions. (Attachment 19)

Proponent Written

Sam MacRoberts, Litigation Director, Kansas Justice Institute (Attachment 20)

Aileen Berquist, Community Engagement Manager, ACLU of Kansas (Attachment 21)

John Pollock, Coordinator, National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel (Attachment 22)

Jon Lueth, Deputy State Director, Americans for Prosperity (Attachment 23)

Opponent

Ed Klumpp explained Kansas does not have a set of rules that is backed by audits as the Federal Government. As it relates to the Federal Asset Forfeiture rules, the federal guidelines and rules are very firm and clear. Kansas Police Officer's Association would propose the State of Kansas adopt similar rules as the Federal Government. Mr. Klumpp stood for questions. (Attachment 24)

Sheriff Jeff Easter stated in new section 1 of HB2640, the Kansas Sheriff's Association (KSA) does not support or agree with the language for seizure and forfeiture of property with a value of less than $100,000.00. Sheriff Easter pointed out that several agencies across the state follow Federal Asset Forfeiture rules on how legally seized funds can be distributed. These rules are very clear and stringent with audits. The State of Kansas has no such rules. KSA would propose the State of Kansas adopt similar rules as the Federal Government. Mr. Easter stood for questions. (Attachment 25)

Greg Smith explained the Johnson County's Sheriff Office objections to this bill are as follows: 1. There is no mechanism for a law enforcement agency to recover costs related to the investigation. Today, recovering costs saves taxpayers money. Without such a mechanism the cost for investigations could increase. 2. The bill allows state agencies to participate in joint task forces with the federal government. There is no mention of local law enforcement agencies in the bill. Most of the task forces are comprised of local law enforcement and not state agencies. Is the intent of the bill to prohibit local law enforcement agencies from participating? 3. Many seizures that occur, particularly when working as a task force with the federal government, fall under the federal seizure laws. Those laws prohibit federal forfeitures from going to the general fund. Mr. Smith also stated they have seen no indications of any systemic issues or violations of the current law that warrant the changes this bill is proposing. Mr. Smith stood for questions. (Attachment 26)

Sarah Washburn stressed the protections are in place to protect innocent property owners from having their property seized. Also the fact that human trafficking is currently covered in this bill is very concerning. Currently interrupting human trafficking can be done by the Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP) and this bill would prevent that from happening. Ms. Washburn said the current statutory scheme and associated case law has Constitutional protections in place requiring notice to all potential innocent owners, an easy to fill out form to submit a claim, and it is overseen by the Courts. Disproportionate forfeitures are not permitted and the Court is required by current law to review the proportionality of the seizure prior to any forfeiture being granted to law enforcement. Ms. Washburn and KHP appreciated the opportunity to provide testimony in opposition of HB2640 and they respectfully request the committee consider their agency’s concerns. Ms. Washburn stood for questions. (Attachment 27)

Chief Darrell Atteberry explained their is no budget for asset forfeiture. Seizing property is done because it is apparent the seizure is interrupting the process of committing a crime. He expressed his concern that none of the proponents addressed how or why the current procedure in not working. Chief Atteberry stood for questions.  (Attachment 28)

Opponent Written

Robert Jacobs, Executive Officer, Kansas Bureau of Investigation (Attachment 29)

John Goodyear, General Counsel, League of Kansas Municipalities (Attachment 30)

Steve Kearney, Executive Director, Kansas County & District Attorney's Association (Attachment 31)

Chairperson Patton closed the hearing on HB2640.