Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Law Enforcement Evidence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would speed return of officers’ weapons after investigations; sponsors say it eases county burdens
Summary
Senate Bill 288 would require quicker return of officers’ duty weapons after investigations conclude, so long as there are no pending charges or appeals; law‑enforcement groups told the House Judiciary Committee March 10 that delays create equipment and training burdens for departments.
Senate Bill 288, introduced to expedite the return of law enforcement officers’ firearms after investigations conclude, drew short testimony during a March 10 House Judiciary Committee hearing.
Sponsor Rep. Gordon Hendrick (testifying as an ex‑mayor) and sheriff’s representatives described instances in which multiple department weapons were held for months or years while investigations, lab testing and coroner inquests proceeded. “Sometimes those weapons now with special scopes on pistols and rifles are over $2,000,” Hendrick said, arguing the prolonged evidence holds burden counties and officers and in some agencies forces deputies to use personal firearms or for counties to purchase replacements.
Supporters included the Montana Police Protective Association and sheriff’s groups, who told the committee that the bill does not alter chain‑of‑custody for evidence where criminal proceedings remain active but would allow weapons to be returned when investigations are complete and there are no pending appeals. The Montana Association of Chiefs of Police offered a “me too” of support.
Committee questions focused on potential impacts to defendants’ rights and evidence preservation. Several members asked whether returning a weapon could compromise a later test requested by defense counsel; sponsors and supporters said the bill preserves the ability to “call back” weapons or retain them where charges remain pending, and that the draft includes explicit exceptions to protect ongoing criminal or appellate processes.
The hearing record did not include formal committee action. Supporters asked the committee to approve the measure, saying it avoids undue financial burdens on officers and small counties while preserving investigative integrity when criminal matters remain open.
