Kansas 2023-2024 Regular Session

Kansas Senate Bill SB458

Introduced

2/6/24

Refer

2/7/24

Report Pass

2/19/24

Engrossed

2/23/24

Refer

2/23/24

Report Pass

3/22/24

Enrolled

4/25/24

Passed

4/25/24

Caption

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.

Impact

The enactment of SB 458 is expected to reinforce the property rights of individuals by ensuring that property is not forfeited without substantial evidence of a criminal link. Additional provisions allow courts to grant payments of attorney fees to claimants prevailing against wrongful seizures, potentially providing greater leverage to individuals contesting their property being taken. By requiring law enforcement agencies to maintain comprehensive financial records and report forfeiture fund usage to the legislature, the bill aims to enhance transparency and accountability in asset seizure practices.

Summary

Senate Bill 458 proposes significant reforms to the seizure and forfeiture of property under the Kansas standard asset seizure and forfeiture act. It specifically delineates that certain drug-related offenses will no longer automatically result in property forfeiture. The bill mandates that state and local law enforcement agencies must adhere to stricter guidelines when requesting federal cooperation for asset seizures, and it sets forth clear requirements for the commencement of forfeiture proceedings, including the necessity of filing a probable cause affidavit. Furthermore, the bill raises the standard of proof required for forfeiture from 'preponderance of the evidence' to 'clear and convincing evidence.'

Sentiment

Overall sentiment surrounding SB 458 appears supportive among civil liberties advocates and some members of the legal community, who argue that the reforms promote justice and prevent the excessive use of state power against individuals. Conversely, some law enforcement entities express concern, suggesting that the bill may hinder their ability to combat crime effectively by limiting the tools available to them for asset recovery.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the potential for decreased financial resources for law enforcement that depend on forfeiture proceeds and the heightened burden of proof potentially complicating cases against those accused of serious offenses. Critics argue that these changes could inadvertently protect perpetrators by making it more challenging to secure necessary evidence for asset forfeiture operations.

Latest SB458 Activity

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

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 HB2396

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.

KS SB237

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.