Texas Senate Bill SB663

Texas 2017 - 85th Regular

Caption

Relating to disposition of proceeds and property from asset forfeiture proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Impact

The changes enacted by SB663 are significant for both law enforcement agencies and property owners impacted by asset forfeiture. By establishing a clearer chain of responsibility and mandating the distribution of proceeds from forfeited assets, the bill aims to enhance transparency and accountability within the forfeiture system. It establishes that proceeds will first go to the holders of nonforfeitable interests, then to child support agencies if applicable, and finally to a fund for crime victims. This structure is intended to balance the needs of various stakeholders while ensuring that the system serves its remedial purpose rather than acting as a means of punitive measure against property owners.

Summary

SB663 modifies the provisions surrounding the disposition of proceeds and property resulting from asset forfeiture proceedings in Texas. The bill clarifies that asset forfeiture is primarily remedial rather than punitive and outlines updated processes for how forfeited property should be handled. Specifically, it transfers the responsibilities for managing and disposing of forfeited assets primarily to the comptroller, intending to streamline the process of selling forfeited items at public auction and distributing the proceeds. Thus, it also emphasizes the protection of nonforfeitable interests of property holders when courts rule on these matters.

Contention

One area of contention includes how this bill adjusts the existing power and capabilities of law enforcement agencies when it comes to asset forfeiture. Critics might argue that SB663 could either limit local agencies’ autonomy to enact forfeiture under certain conditions or not go far enough in safeguarding the rights of individuals from whom property is seized. Moreover, the requirement for audits and reporting to the attorney general infers a potential increase in bureaucratic oversight, which could be perceived as either a necessary check against misconduct or an additional layer of complexity in enforcement activities.