Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Asset Forfeiture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves civil asset‑forfeiture reforms requiring greater parity with criminal cases
Summary
The House passed a second substitute to HB 19 advancing civil asset‑forfeiture reforms: a broader definition of 'innocent owner,' a requirement that prosecutors bring parallel criminal actions in many cases (with exceptions), and removal of a cap on attorney‑fee recovery; the bill passed 58–10.
Representative Greg Green presented the second substitute to HB 19 as a package of reforms aimed at reducing disparities between civil forfeiture actions and criminal prosecutions. He said the bill seeks to “protect the property rights of innocent owners” by redefining that status and by ensuring a minimum level of parity between civil and criminal processes.
Key changes described on the floor include:
- Redefining “innocent owner” so that a property holder is not treated as culpable simply because they failed to take unilateral steps to stop another’s criminal conduct; the bill removes a prior requirement that an owner must have taken affirmative actions to avoid culpability. - Clarifying the definition of “proceeds” and limiting recovery to the portion of property directly tied to the offense. - Setting a standard of proof that prosecutors must meet in civil forfeiture actions and, in many cases, requiring a parallel criminal action to accompany civil forfeiture filings to ensure evidence exists to support the claim. - Removing an artificial cap on recovery of attorney’s fees for successful claimants and permitting payment of those fees from the asset‑forfeiture fund administered by the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ).
Representative Cutler and other opponents noted law enforcement concerns and cautioned that the bill ties prosecutorial hands in certain investigations; Representative Christiansen and Representative King spoke in support, saying the substitute strikes a balance between public‑safety needs and individual property rights. On the floor, Representative Green emphasized the reforms are not intended to impair lawful seizure operations but to ensure due process in civil forfeiture adjudications.
After discussion and substitute adoption, the House voted to pass the second substitute to HB 19, 58 yes votes and 10 no votes. The bill will be transmitted to the Senate for consideration.
The bill’s floor debate centered on balancing law‑enforcement effectiveness with protections for individuals who lack the resources to litigate civil forfeiture actions; floor supporters highlighted polling and bipartisan interest in reform.
