Texas House Bill HB171

Texas 2019 - 86th Regular

Caption

Relating to the admissibility of evidence in an asset forfeiture proceeding and the seizure and forfeiture of certain property.

Impact

The changes introduced by HB 171 are expected to have significant implications for law enforcement and individuals involved in asset forfeiture cases. By limiting the circumstances under which property can be seized, the bill aims to ensure that lawful property owned by individuals is not unjustly confiscated. This could lead to a reduction in the number of forfeitures that occur, emphasizing the importance of due process and proper legal standards in these proceedings. The bill reinforces the principle that individuals should be afforded protections against unlawful seizure of their property.

Summary

House Bill 171 aims to modify the admissibility of evidence in asset forfeiture proceedings in Texas. The bill specifically alters Article 59.02 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stating that property cannot be seized and forfeited if it is not otherwise unlawful to possess and if its admissibility as evidence would be prohibited in the prosecution of the underlying offense. This means that certain properties that would typically be classified as contraband may be exempt from forfeiture if they meet these criteria. The intent behind the bill is to provide clarity and protect property rights during forfeiture proceedings.

Contention

While supporters of HB 171 argue that it strengthens individual rights and ensures that only truly unlawful property may be forfeited, there may be concerns from law enforcement agencies regarding the potential impact on their ability to effectively carry out asset forfeiture as a tool against criminal activities. Opponents may argue that the bill could complicate or hinder law enforcement efforts, particularly in cases involving organized crime where asset seizure is utilized to disrupt criminal operations. The balancing act between protecting citizens' rights and allowing law enforcement to perform their duties is a crucial point of contention surrounding this legislative change.