Louisiana House Bill HB101

Louisiana 2018 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/21/18
• Refer: 2/21/18
• Refer: 3/12/18

Caption

Provides relative to the seizure and forfeiture of property used in the course of, derived from, or realized through a pattern of racketeering activity

Impact

The passage of HB 101 would significantly update the existing framework regarding property forfeiture under the Racketeering Act. By introducing clearer procedures and exceptions for the forfeiture of property, the bill aims to enhance the capability of the state to combat organized crime effectively. It also stipulates that any injured parties have a superior claim to forfeited property, which may influence how victims of racketeering activities perceive restitution and recovery of losses incurred from such crimes.

Summary

House Bill 101 aims to amend the Louisiana Racketeering Act by modifying the seizure and forfeiture processes related to property involved in racketeering activities. The bill specifies that all property, both movable and immovable, including money, which is used in the course of or derived from a pattern of racketeering activity is subject to civil forfeiture to the state. This change intends to ensure that property associated with illegal activities can be promptly seized and disposed of, lending more power to law enforcement in handling profits from crime.

Sentiment

Discussions around HB 101 appear to reflect a general sentiment of support among law enforcement and some lawmakers, who argue that the changes are necessary for a more robust strategy against organized crime. However, there might be concerns regarding the potential for abuse in the forfeiture process, especially regarding due process rights for individuals accused of racketeering. The bill’s effect on civil liberties may be a point of contention which warrants further scrutiny and discussion among legislators.

Contention

Notably, the bill's effective implementation hinges on the approval of a proposed constitutional amendment that would expand the scope of property eligible for forfeiture. This conditionality could lead to debates about the implications of extending governmental power in property seizure cases, potentially raising ethical and legal concerns. Critics may argue that the bill could inadvertently incentivize aggressive tactics by law enforcement that could impact innocent property owners caught in the legal crossfire.