Bill to expand civil forfeiture reporting draws agency concerns and transparency supporters
Loading...
Summary
Supporters told the committee House Bill 509 would expand civil asset forfeiture reporting to provide more detailed, searchable data; the Attorney General’s Office warned the added requirements would impose administrative burden, safety risks, and include information the state does not hold about federal forfeitures.
Representative (sponsor) introduced House Bill 509 to expand the data required in the state’s annual civil forfeiture report. The sponsor said a study committee had found existing reports lacked detail needed to inform policy and public understanding, and the bill seeks specific, itemized information agencies already collect when seizing property.
Josh Spicer, Chief of the Drug Prosecution Unit at the New Hampshire Department of Justice, testified for the Attorney General’s Office and expressed significant concerns. Spicer said the bill ‘‘would require significantly more extensive and detailed reporting of forfeiture data than is currently required or currently done,’’ and that the added work would likely require hiring an investigative paralegal and incurring costs that the department may not be able to absorb. He also warned that requiring public reporting of specific seizure locations, combined with defendant names, could pose safety risks and that information on federal forfeiture activity is often not available to state agencies.
Alastair Whitney of the Institute for Justice urged the committee to approve HB 509, telling senators the public has “an absolute right to know” about how civil asset forfeiture is used and that similar laws in other states have proved feasible. Whitney said the bill largely tracks a model transparency statute his organization has supported and that many of the requested fields are already accessible to law enforcement and the Attorney General’s Office.
Senators asked about the fiscal note and whether federal equitable-sharing activity should be included. The sponsor said the bill asks local agencies to report whether federal partners were involved and the nature of any joint activity, not to compel federal agencies to supply internal federal decisions.
Ending: The hearing revealed a split between transparency advocates and the Department of Justice, which cited staffing, safety and jurisdictional limits; senators asked follow-up questions about workload and which data are actually available to state or local agencies. The committee closed the hearing for deliberation.
