An Act To Amend Titles 11 And 16 Of The Delaware Code Relating To Civil Asset Forfeiture.
The bill includes several significant provisions, such as prohibiting the forfeiture of currency below $500 and mandating that no forfeiture can occur unless a criminal charge has been filed. This aims to limit the state's ability to seize assets without due process. Additionally, the bill introduces financial responsibility for the individual or entity holding seized property in the case that a court orders the property returned, which further protects property owners and deters wrongful seizures.
House Bill 280 is an act aimed at reforming civil asset forfeiture laws in the state of Delaware by amending Titles 11 and 16 of the Delaware Code. The bill seeks to establish more stringent conditions under which asset forfeiture can occur, specifically focusing on protecting property rights of individuals. By shifting the burden of proof onto the state, it ensures that the state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an asset is forfeitable, contrary to current law which requires innocent owners to prove they had no knowledge of or consented to illegal activities associated with their property.
The general sentiment surrounding HB 280 appears to be positive among proponents who argue that it is a necessary reform to prevent abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws, which have faced criticism for infringing on the rights of property owners. Opponents typically assert that these reforms may hinder law enforcement's ability to combat crime effectively, particularly in drug-related offenses, though the bill attempts to balance this by maintaining necessary legal tools for seizures backed by appropriate judicial procedures.
Notable points of contention arise around the implications of shifting the burden of proof onto the state. Supporters argue this protects innocent property owners from being unduly harmed by forfeiture practices, while critics contend it may complicate and slow down criminal investigations. Additionally, there are concerns regarding the enforcement of financial liabilities imposed on those holding seized property, and whether law enforcement may be limited in their capabilities to effectively manage seized assets intended for public safety use.