Texas House Bill HB2887

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Out of House Committee: 5/9/11
• Introduced: 3/10/11
• Refer: 3/17/11
• Report Pass: 5/3/11

Caption

Relating to the disposition of property seized by the Texas Department of Public Safety in connection with violations of the Texas Controlled Substances Act.

Note

Overall, HB2887 represents a significant regulatory change with implications for law enforcement funding and property management in Texas, seeking to strike a balance between efficiency and local control.

Impact

The bill modifies existing procedures under Article 59.06 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by adding new subsections that specify how forfeited property is to be divided between the DPS, the local treasury, and the general revenue fund. This means that law enforcement agencies could have a more streamlined process for utilizing seized assets, as well as guaranteed funding sources for operational purposes. By designating a significant portion of proceeds to law enforcement, the bill aims to enhance the resources available for crime prevention and investigation activities.

Summary

House Bill 2887 pertains to the disposition of property seized by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) in connection with violations of the Texas Controlled Substances Act. The bill outlines new provisions for how seized property is managed, specifically allowing for the transfer of forfeited property and the allocation of funds generated from the sale of such property. This legislative intent emphasizes an organized approach to handling seized assets and proposes a formula for dividing any proceeds from forfeitures between the state and local authorities.

Contention

While the bill is largely aimed at improving the efficiency and efficacy of property management following drug-related offenses, there are potential points of contention regarding how these changes affect local autonomy. Critics may argue that funneling substantial proceeds to state-level law enforcement could undermine local efforts and priorities, thereby causing tension between state and local governance structures. Furthermore, discussions surrounding potential conflicts of interest and accountability in the handling of seized property may also arise, framing the bill within larger conversations about law enforcement practices.