Nevada 2023 Regular Session

Nevada Assembly Bill AB350

Introduced

3/20/23

Refer

3/20/23

Report Pass

4/11/23

Engrossed

4/17/23

Refer

4/17/23

Report Pass

5/18/23

Enrolled

5/29/23

Chaptered

6/1/23

Passed

6/1/23

Caption

Revises provisions governing forfeiture of property. (BDR 14-472)

Impact

The implementation of AB350 is expected to significantly impact how property seizures are documented and processed at the state level, requiring law enforcement agencies to adopt more robust record-keeping measures. With the stipulation that these reports be made available in a machine-readable format, the bill also seeks to enhance public accessibility to this information, thereby fostering a culture of transparency regarding law enforcement actions. Furthermore, by compiling aggregate reports of forfeitures, the Office of the Attorney General will be better positioned to identify trends and ensure compliance with state laws governing asset forfeiture.

Summary

Assembly Bill 350 (AB350) is designed to revise the provisions governing the forfeiture of property by law enforcement agencies in the state. Specifically, it mandates that law enforcement agencies include additional details in their annual reports submitted to the Office of the Attorney General about property seizures and forfeitures. This includes more comprehensive data on the nature of seizures, such as the type of property involved, the circumstances surrounding the seizure, and the judicial outcomes related to each case. By requiring more extensive data collection and reporting, the bill aims to increase transparency and accountability in law enforcement practices concerning property confiscation.

Contention

While the bill may serve to strengthen oversight on property forfeiture, there are potential points of contention regarding its implications for law enforcement agencies. Opponents might argue that the increased reporting requirements could strain the resources of smaller agencies that may already be facing budgetary constraints. Additionally, some law enforcement officials could view the increased oversight as a hindrance to effective law enforcement practices, fearing that it may complicate or delay the process of asset seizure. The balance between enhancing public accountability and maintaining operational efficiency within law enforcement agencies will be a critical discussion point as the implementation of AB350 unfolds.

Latest AB350 Activity

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

HI HB1965

Relating To Property Forfeiture.

HI SB149

Relating To Property Forfeiture.

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.

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 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.