Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate adopts substitute to keep civil forfeiture cases in state court and reduce ‘pay‑to‑play’ incentives
Summary
First substitute SB109 assigns original jurisdiction for local forfeiture cases to state district courts, requires judicial oversight of transfers to federal agencies and removes a prior-seizure requirement for agencies to apply for forfeiture-grant funds; sponsors say it reduces perverse incentives and preserves law-enforcement tools.
Senator Weiler presented first substitute Senate Bill 109 to revise civil asset forfeiture procedures. Weiler said the substitute would ensure local law-enforcement seizures start in state district court rather than being routed to federal court, and would remove a rule that a jurisdiction had to record a prior forfeiture to apply for forfeiture-grant funding — alleviating an incentive for agencies to pursue seizures to secure grant eligibility.
The sponsor described recent case law (the Utah Supreme Court's Savely decision) and said the measure codifies parts of that decision and addresses an apparent incentive problem. He said the substitute incorporates technical changes requested by the Attorney General's office and that stakeholders reached consensus language.
Senator Asher and others expressed appreciation for honoring prior work and noted the substitute reduces some opposition. The Senate adopted the consensus substitute and ordered it read for a third time; the clerk recorded 28 yeas, 0 nays and 1 absent.
