California 2023-2024 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB820

Introduced
2/17/23  
Introduced
2/17/23  
Refer
3/1/23  
Refer
3/1/23  
Refer
3/21/23  
Refer
3/21/23  
Refer
3/29/23  
Refer
3/29/23  
Refer
4/10/23  
Refer
4/10/23  
Report Pass
4/17/23  
Report Pass
4/17/23  
Refer
4/17/23  
Refer
4/17/23  
Report Pass
4/27/23  
Report Pass
4/27/23  
Refer
5/1/23  
Refer
5/1/23  
Report Pass
1/18/24  
Report Pass
1/18/24  
Engrossed
1/29/24  
Engrossed
1/29/24  
Refer
4/29/24  
Refer
4/29/24  
Report Pass
6/11/24  
Report Pass
6/11/24  
Refer
6/11/24  
Refer
6/11/24  
Report Pass
7/3/24  
Refer
7/3/24  

Caption

Cannabis: enforcement: seizure of property.

Impact

The passage of SB 820 would significantly bolster the state's ability to regulate and enforce cannabis laws by allowing for the seizure of materials and property associated with illegal operations. Specifically, the bill outlines the required procedures for the seizure and subsequent forfeiture of property, thus streamlining the process for law enforcement. It will also allow the department to impose civil penalties on individuals engaging in commercial cannabis activities without licenses, thereby reinforcing legal compliance across the board.

Summary

Senate Bill 820, introduced by Senator Alvarado-Gil, amends the Business and Professions Code by adding Section 26038.2, which relates to the enforcement of cannabis regulations. The bill authorizes the California Department of Cannabis Control and local jurisdictions to seize property in places where commercial cannabis activities are conducted without the required state licenses. This includes a range of items such as cannabis products, cultivation equipment, and vehicles used in unlicensed activities. The bill aims to strengthen enforcement measures against illegal cannabis operations, ensuring that only licensed entities can engage in such activities within the state.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 820 is predominantly supportive from proponents who view it as a necessary tool for regulating the cannabis industry and curbing illegal operations. They argue that enhancing enforcement will lead to a more orderly and safer market for legal cannabis businesses. Critics, however, express concerns that the broad nature of property seizure could disproportionately affect small operators and may lead to excessive enforcement actions against minor infractions. This concern emphasizes the need for a balanced approach to regulation that does not penalize legitimate activities.

Contention

Notably, the bill excludes certain limited activities such as those involving fewer than 1,000 living cannabis plants from its provisions on property seizure. This stipulation aims to protect smaller-scale operators and home growers from severe penalties while allowing law enforcement to focus on larger, illegal operations. However, the potential for overreach in property seizure remains a point of contention among critics of the bill, who worry it could enable unjust enforcement practices.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

OK HB1619

Asset forfeiture proceedings; seizure of property; publication of notices on certain website; effective date.

OK HB1619

Asset forfeiture proceedings; seizure of property; publication of notices on certain website; effective date.

CA AB2102

Cannabis: facilities used for unlawful purposes.

OK HB1020

Crimes and punishments; requiring forfeiture proceedings follow related criminal convictions; effective date.

OK HB1020

Crimes and punishments; requiring forfeiture proceedings follow related criminal convictions; effective date.

CA AB603

Asset forfeiture: human trafficking.

WV HB2673

To require a guilty verdict, before any property of any type are taken from an individual

OK SB673

Asset forfeiture; requiring forfeiture proceedings follow related criminal convictions. Effective date.