New Hampshire committee advances civil forfeiture transparency bill amidst concerns

The New Hampshire Senate Executive Departments and Administration meeting on April 9, 2025, focused on a proposed bill aimed at enhancing transparency in civil asset forfeiture reporting. The bill seeks to improve the existing reporting framework by requiring law enforcement agencies to provide more detailed data on forfeitures, which proponents argue is essential for informed policy-making and public awareness.

The bill's sponsor emphasized that the changes are straightforward and would not significantly increase the workload for law enforcement agencies, as the required data is already available. The intent is to provide clearer insights into civil forfeiture practices, an area often criticized for lacking transparency and accountability. The sponsor noted that objective data is crucial for understanding the implications of civil forfeiture laws and for making necessary adjustments to the system.

However, the proposal faced opposition from the New Hampshire Department of Justice (DOJ). A representative from the DOJ expressed concerns that the bill would impose substantial administrative burdens, potentially requiring the hiring of additional staff to manage the increased reporting demands. They highlighted that much of the proposed data collection could be redundant or irrelevant, raising safety concerns about disclosing specific seizure locations and case details.

Supporters of the bill, including representatives from the Institute for Justice, argued that the public has a right to know about civil asset forfeiture, which can result in property loss without a criminal conviction. They asserted that increased transparency would promote good governance and protect property rights.

The discussion also touched on the complexities of asset forfeiture, including the distinction between criminal cases and civil forfeiture proceedings, which often lack adequate defense representation. Some committee members suggested that combining these processes could lead to more efficient handling of cases.

As the meeting concluded, the committee members were encouraged to consider the implications of the proposed legislation, weighing the need for transparency against the concerns raised by law enforcement officials. The next steps will involve further deliberation on the bill and potential amendments to address the concerns expressed during the meeting.