Public defenders and property‑rights groups back conviction requirement for forfeiture; police chiefs caution on investigations

Representative Place presented House Bill 7,289 to require criminal forfeiture (a conviction) before property can be permanently forfeited in certain controlled‑substances cases, ending aspects of civil and administrative forfeiture for those offenses.

Angela Yingling of the public defender’s office described practical harms experienced by indigent clients who lose property without meaningful notice or the resources to contest administrative forfeiture. "When a client comes up to you afterwards and says, 'my assets were seized'...it's too late," Yingling said.

Alastair Whitney of the Institute for Justice urged support, saying the proposal restores basic due‑process norms and eliminates incentives that treat property as "guilty until proven innocent." Whitney noted that the state already has criminal‑forfeiture statutes but civil forfeiture remains more commonly used.

Chief Ryan Duffy of the Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association testified in opposition, saying forfeiture can proceed separate from criminal prosecutions because plea deals, cooperation agreements or diverted charges can still justify forfeiture in the investigative interest of public safety. He warned that eliminating administrative forfeiture would clog court dockets and require law enforcement to return property in some operational circumstances.

Attorneys and public‑defense witnesses told the committee about cases where property owners lacked notice or counsel in administrative proceedings; proponents pointed to legal risks and Supreme Court precedent protecting property rights. The committee held the bill for further study.