Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Asset Forfeiture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers consider consolidating civil asset forfeiture rules, adding notice and reporting
Summary
Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1440 would create a single statutory chapter for civil asset forfeiture proceedings, require notice timelines, broaden reporting and set procedures for disposition and proceeds. Sponsors said the bill increases consistency and transparency; law enforcement groups sought clarity on restitution, storage costs,
Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1440, which would reorganize and standardize civil asset forfeiture procedures, drew testimony from the bill sponsor, law-enforcement organizations and state agencies at a public hearing of the Senate Law & Justice Committee.
Joe McKittrick, staff counsel, told the committee the bill would create a new chapter governing civil asset forfeiture that mirrors the Controlled Substances Act'style process and applies it to a set of criminal statutes listed in the bill report. Under the proposal, seizing agencies must notify property owners within 15 days, and owners or claimants have 60 days (120 days for real property) to challenge the forfeiture. The seizing agency bears the burden by a preponderance of evidence. After forfeiture and satisfaction of any victim restitution, agencies may sell, retain for official use or transfer forfeited property and must remit 10% of proceeds to the State General Fund; the bill creates reporting requirements for seized and forfeited property aggregated by State Patrol on a public website.
Representative Roger Goodman, prime sponsor, said the bill is a multi-year effort to address two concerns: inconsistent procedures scattered through multiple statutes and the lack of transparency and tracking for seized property. Goodman told the committee the bill consolidates forfeiture procedures, sets the burden on the state and extends time for owners to respond; he also said reporting was scaled back from an earlier version because of budget constraints. He confirmed a previously enacted provision directs 10% of proceeds to a behavioral-health-related fund and that provision continues.
Law enforcement witnesses supported many structural elements but raised technical questions. Melina Thompson, legislative director at the Department of Fish and Wildlife, asked for clarifying language to distinguish seizures taken for evidentiary purposes from forfeiture proceedings. James McMahon, policy director for the Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, and Michelle Walker, prosecutor for the City of Kent, asked for clarity on paying court-ordered restitution prior to disposition, allowing municipal courts as forums for certain appeals and accounting for storage and maintenance costs in net proceeds calculations. McMahon also asked for clearer language about maintaining the condition of seized property.
Staff said a fiscal note is available and the bill would take effect Jan. 1, 2026 if enacted. The committee closed public testimony after receiving pro and con sign-ins.
