Kansas lawmakers unanimously passed a bill overhauling rules for when police can seize property under a practice known as civil asset forfeiture.
The Kansas House and Senate voted 120-0 and 35-0, respectively. SB 458 On Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly's desk earlier this month. Among its provisions, the bill would exclude crimes involving drug possession or personal use from civil asset forfeiture, require law enforcement agencies to notify county prosecutors within 14 days of forfeiture requests, and allow local police to enforce federal law. Limit the period of time available. “Adopt” a forfeiture case.
It would also require judges to consider whether seizures were unconstitutionally excessive, place the burden on prosecutors to prove that seizures were proportionate to the crime, and allow some property owners to recover legal costs if they contested seizures. .
A wide range of civil liberties groups and think tanks supported the bill, arguing that Kansas' civil asset forfeiture process is tilted in favor of the government and against property owners. These complaints have led more than 30 states to revise their asset forfeiture laws in the past decade, but Kansas was not among them.
Under general civil forfeiture laws, police can seize property suspected of involvement in criminal activity, such as drug trafficking, even if the owner has never been charged with a crime. Law enforcement groups say civil forfeiture is an essential tool for targeting illicit profits and disrupting organized crime.
But Sam MacRoberts, director of litigation at the Kansas Justice Institute, said the reforms were “long overdue and desperately needed.”
“Forfeiture is insulting and unjust,” MacRoberts says. “A number of reforms, including raising the burden of proof, limiting federal adoptions, and requiring the government to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees to successful property owners, are a good start. We hope this will lead to fewer of the more abusive forfeiture cases.” “
One of those incidents is Dwona Goodridge's Trial, a 57-year-old Junction City resident whose 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe was impounded by Geary County sheriff's deputies last year. The deputy stopped her son for multiple traffic violations, and she impounded the truck after the deputy claimed to have found “shakes” (small marijuana crumbs) in the center console, but no evidence was collected. County prosecutors moved to seize Goodridge's truck.[ed] Proceeds of illegal drug trafficking, if used or intended to be used in furtherance of drug trafficking.”
It took Goodridge eight months and representation from the Kansas Justice Institute to get his truck back. (That's not uncommon: Americans for Prosperity 2022 report Under Kansas' forfeiture laws, people who were able to recover their confiscated property took an average of 419 days to get it back.)
Kansas law enforcement groups opposed several parts of the bill, and to reach a bipartisan compromise, lawmakers removed a provision that would have added the ability to require jury trials in asset forfeiture cases.
Many other state supreme courts have ruled that property owners have a due process right to a jury trial in forfeiture cases. Last year, the Indiana Supreme Court rule The seizure of property through civil forfeiture is “an inherently legal action that triggers the right” to a jury trial.
The New Jersey Supreme Court also affirmed the right to a jury trial in drug forfeiture cases. State v. One 1990 Honda AccordAnd the Pennsylvania Supreme Court followed suit. Commonwealth v. One 1984 Z-28 Camaro Coupe. The South Dakota Supreme Court upheld both cases. State v. One 1969 Blue Pontiac Firebird and $4,403.83 in US currency..
The lack of jury trial protections was disappointing to supporters of the Kansas bill, but MacRoberts said he would continue to work for more reforms.
“The government has to prove its case to a jury,” he says. “We will continue to work to ensure that Kansans have their cases heard by their peers. There is more work to be done, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.”