The House Judiciary Committee heard SB 99 sponsored by Rep. Steuerwald on civil forfeiture. The introduced version of this bill was prepared by the interim study committee on Courts and the Judiciary in response to a federal court decision (Washington v. Marion County) declaring Indiana’s forfeiture process unconstitutional for lack of due process. The bill:
- requires the prosecuting attorney to file an affidavit of probable cause with a court not later than seven days after property is seized and provides for the return of the property to the owner if the court does not find probable cause;
- establishes a hardship procedure for an owner of real property or of a vehicle (if the owner was not operating the vehicle at the time of the seizure) to obtain provisional custody of the seized property pending a final forfeiture determination.
- makes the time limit for filing a forfeiture action: (1) 21 days, if the owner hasfiled a written demand for return of the property; or (2) 90 days, if the owner has not filed a written demand for return of the property;
- provides that an owner whose property is returned is not liable for the costs of storage, transportation, or maintenance;
- specifies how the proceeds of a forfeiture action are to be distributed;
- requires a prosecuting attorney to report certain information concerning forfeitures to the Prosecuting Attorneys Council;
- imposes certain requirements on the use and compensation of outside counsel in forfeiture actions and prohibits a prosecuting attorney or deputy prosecuting attorney from receiving a contingency fee for a forfeiture action.
The Marion County and Delaware County Prosecutors and the Office of the Attorney General testified in support of the bill. The Indiana Public Defender Council testified in support of the concept of forfeiture reform but identified concerns with the bill language. The bill passed 13-0.
Read the bill at https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2018/bills/senate/99