The bill outlines detailed procedures for the civil seizure of properties linked to terrorism acts, allowing law enforcement officers to act based on court orders or, under specific circumstances, without them. Additionally, it establishes a framework for victims of terrorism, enabling them to file claims for damages and costs against perpetrators. Victims can potentially recover damages up to three times the actual damages incurred, with a minimum award of $10,000. This provision is aimed at empowering victims and enhancing their rights in the aftermath of terrorist acts.
Summary
Senate Bill 718, introduced by Senator Anderson, aims to amend California's Civil Code by adding Section 52.8, which pertains to acts of terrorism and civil forfeiture. The bill establishes that any property, including money, that is used in, intended for use in, derived from, or realized through an act of terrorism is subject to civil forfeiture. This provision extends to individuals or entities that committed, aided, or solicited such acts, broadening the scope of civil forfeiture previously associated primarily with drug-related offenses or crime proceeds.
Contention
One point of contention surrounding SB 718 is the balance between effective law enforcement and the rights of individuals. Critics may argue that broad definitions and expansive forfeiture powers could lead to potential abuses and unwarranted property seizures. Additionally, the bill raises questions about due process concerning property rights, as individuals may face challenges in contesting seizures or may not be adequately compensated. Therefore, while the bill seeks to provide justice for victims of terrorism, it must also consider the implications for civil liberties and property ownership rights.
Specifying that certain drug offenses do not give rise to forfeiture under the Kansas standard asset seizure and forfeiture act, providing limitations on state and local law enforcement agency requests for federal adoption of a seizure under the act, requiring probable cause affidavit filing and review to commence forfeiture proceedings, increasing the burden of proof required to forfeit property to clear and convincing evidence, authorizing courts to order payment of attorney fees and costs for certain claimants and requiring the Kansas bureau of investigation to submit forfeiture fund financial reports to the legislature.
Specifying that certain drug offenses do not give rise to forfeiture under the Kansas standard asset seizure and forfeiture act, requiring courts to make a finding that forfeiture is not excessive, restricting actions prior to commencement of forfeiture proceedings, requiring probable cause affidavit filing and review to commence proceedings, increasing the burden of proof required to forfeit property to clear and convincing evidence and authorizing courts to order payment of attorney fees and costs for certain claimants.