HB 444 -- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY FORFEITURE ACT

CO-SPONSORS:  Kreider, Hosmer, Barry, Farnen, Robirds, Boucher,
Crawford, Britt

COMMITTEE ACTION:  Voted "do pass" by the Committee on
Miscellaneous Bills and Resolutions by a vote of 9 to 0.

This bill makes a number of changes to the Criminal Activity
Forfeiture Act (CAFA).  The bill:

(1)  Defines "seizing agency" as the agency that is the primary
employer of the officer or agent seizing the property and
"seizure" as the point at which any law enforcement officer or
agent discovers and exercises control over property believed to
be associated with criminal activity (Section 513.605, RSMo);

(2)  Prohibits seized property from being disposed of pursuant
to unclaimed property provisions, unless a CAFA proceeding is
unsuccessful (Section 513.607);

(3)  Requires the prosecuting attorney or Attorney General to
submit an annual report detailing information about seizures to
the State Auditor.  Currently, this report must only be
submitted to the Department of Public Safety.  The bill further
requires the State Auditor to make an annual report compiling
this data to be presented annually to the General Assembly
(Section 513.607);

(4)  Makes intentional or knowing failure to comply with seizure
reporting requirements a class A misdemeanor, punishable with a
fine of up to $1,000 (Section 513.607);

(5)  Specifies that property seized may not be transferred to a
federal agency for forfeiture under federal law without court
approval, regardless of the identity of the seizing agency
(Section 513.647); and

(6)  Makes it a class A misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up
to $1,000, for law enforcement agencies using the federal
forfeiture system to intentionally or knowingly fail to comply
with statutory audit requirements (Section 513.653).

FISCAL NOTE:  Increase to School Building Revolving Fund of
Unknown in FY 2002, FY 2003, and FY 2004.

PROPONENTS:  Supporters say that the bill would clarify at what
point seizure takes place.  The bill will not only protect the
integrity of Missouri law enforcement officers, but also ensure
that the seized assets are used for their constitutionally
mandated use, which is school buildings.

Testifying for the bill were Representative Kreider; Missouri
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Missouri Sheriffs
Association; Cooperating School Districts of Suburban Kansas
City; Missouri Council of School Administrators; Missouri State
Teachers Association; Missouri National Education Association;
MoAFT; Missouri School Boards Association; and St. Louis School
Districts.

OPPONENTS:  There was no opposition voiced to the committee.

Donna Schlosser, Legislative Analyst

Missouri House of Representatives
Last Updated November 26, 2001 at 11:44 am