Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Forfeiture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances first substitute to change Initiative B forfeiture rules after hours of debate
Summary
After extended floor debate and several amendment votes, the Utah Senate advanced the first substitute of Senate Bill 175, which revises Initiative B civil forfeiture procedures to add protections for innocent property owners while preserving law-enforcement forfeiture tools; one amendment to require federal/state task-force agreements failed on a roll call.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Senate advanced the first substitute of Senate Bill 175 on Feb. 18, 2004, after lengthy floor debate over how the state should limit unintended consequences from Initiative B, the citizen-approved civil-forfeiture measure.
Sponsor Sen. Scott K. Butters (Senate) opened the debate, saying the substitute seeks to preserve the initiative’s protections for innocent property holders while correcting technical gaps that have impeded law enforcement. He described changes including shortening court-processing time from 90 to 60 days and adding protections for ‘‘common interest’’ owners who can show they were unaware of criminal use of property.
Sen. Jason E. Thomas (Senate) proposed Amendment 8 to require that, when state and federal agencies cooperate in multi-agency task forces, there be an agreement to use Utah’s forfeiture procedures so that the higher state standards and burdens of proof would apply. Thomas said federal civil-forfeiture "procedures...don't have all of those due process protections," and argued the amendment would better protect innocent owners.
Opponents, including Sen. Pete Hilliard, warned that a requirement would jeopardize cooperation with federal partners. "It just plain frankly won't work," Hilliard said, arguing federal agencies could withdraw from joint investigations rather than sign a binding agreement. Sen. Bell and others also questioned whether the state could legally compel federal practice, and some members worried that mandating agreements could leave Utah law enforcement out of multi-jurisdiction investigations.
On a roll-call vote, Amendment 8 failed (8 yes, 19 no, 2 absent). The Senate then adopted a set of technical and substantive amendments that sponsors described as improvements: clarifying attorney-fee rules so that a prevailing plaintiff is not later penalized by a judge reexamining case 'merit,' refining the innocent-lienholder protections, and tightening language on when public reprimands are required for judicial misconduct (a separate issue discussed earlier but related to disciplinary transparency).
After additional discussion and votes, the first substitute for SB175 was moved to the third-reading calendar. Supporters said the bill strikes a balance between strengthening property-right protections and ensuring prosecutors retain tools to disrupt organized drug activity; opponents cautioned the bill might undercut the citizen intent expressed in Initiative B or fail to solve federal procedural gaps.
The Senate did not enact the law on the floor that day; the first substitute was placed on the third-reading calendar for a final passage vote at a later time.
What’s next: SB175 will return for third reading where the Senate will consider final passage and any remaining amendments or motions to concur or send the measure to the House.
