Senators press prosecutors and PAC on asset-forfeiture accounting and oversight options

Senators pressed witnesses about the use and oversight of asset-forfeiture funds after committee materials showed invoices tied to hourly rates higher than a $65 cap discussed for state-funded conflict appointments. Vice Chairman Spinelax summarized committee records showing private-hourly invoices of $250 paid in some cases and asked what public remedies exist. "Assuming the fact pattern ... forfeiture funds were used to pay some of those $250 an hour invoices," Spinelax said, "what are the options of accountability?"

Pete Skandalakis and other witnesses explained the typical distribution and oversight paths: when property is seized and sold, "90% goes to the seizing law enforcement agency, 10% goes to the DA's office," Skandalakis said, but local accounting varies. Some counties deposit DA forfeiture shares into the county general fund, which may blur the statutory limits on how forfeiture proceeds are used. Skandalakis said the straightforward complaint path is to the attorney general, who can ask the state auditor to review records; PAC has no disciplinary authority over DAs. "The options would be to follow what the statute sets forth ... go to the attorney general and you make that complaint, and the attorney general can ask the state auditor to look at it," he said.

Witnesses stressed variation across counties and that not all counties have significant forfeiture receipts. The committee requested more detail from PAC and local offices to trace accounting practices and to explore statutory or administrative remedies if funds are being used inconsistent with statute. The chair closed by asking stakeholders to submit suggestions to the committee before the Monday meeting.