Kansas 2023-2024 Regular Session

Kansas House Bill HB2396

Introduced

2/10/23

Refer

2/10/23

Failed

4/30/24

Caption

Requiring a criminal conviction for civil asset forfeiture and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that property is subject to forfeiture, remitting proceeds to the state general fund and requiring law enforcement agencies to make forfeiture reports more frequently.

Impact

This legislative amendment significantly alters how asset seizure and forfeiture operates under state law. By requiring a criminal conviction before forfeiture can occur, the bill seeks to safeguard individuals' rights against the state. The requirement for a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard represents a shift toward more stringent scrutiny of law enforcement actions regarding asset seizures, fostering a legal environment that aligns with principles of justice and individual rights. These changes are anticipated to decrease the incidence of forfeitures that do not accompany a criminal charge, thereby providing relief to individuals who may have previously faced unjust property loss.

Summary

House Bill 2396 modifies the Kansas Standard Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Act by imposing stricter requirements for asset forfeiture. The bill mandates that no property may be subject to forfeiture without a prior criminal conviction related to the offense that justifies the forfeiture. Consequently, law enforcement agencies must demonstrate that there is 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' that the property in question is subject to forfeiture, a significant escalation from previous standards. This change aims to enhance the protections afforded to property owners and ensure due process in the forfeiture process.

Contention

The passage of HB 2396 is likely not without contention. Proponents argue that it reinforces civil liberties and redresses previous instances where property could be seized without sufficient proof of wrongdoing, which has been a concern among civil rights advocates. However, critics may contend that the bill could inhibit law enforcement's ability to effectively combat crime, particularly drug-related offenses, as forfeiture has been a tool for disrupting criminal enterprises financially. This discourse reflects a broader national debate over the balance between law enforcement authority and the protection of individual rights in the context of asset forfeiture.

Latest HB2396 Activity

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

KS SB458

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.

KS SB237

KS HB2606

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.

KS HB2380

Requiring a criminal conviction for civil asset forfeiture, remitting proceeds from civil asset forfeiture to the state general fund, increasing the burden of proof required to forfeit property, making certain property ineligible for forfeiture, providing persons involved in forfeiture proceedings representation by counsel and the ability to demand a jury trial and allowing a person to request a hearing on whether forfeiture is excessive.