The Kansas Legislature Unanimously Passed a Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Bill

Kansas had among the most lax civil asset forfeiture laws in the country, but a bill sent to the governor's desk would strengthen protections for property owners.

The Kansas Legislature unanimously passed a bill overhauling the 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, to send S.B. 458 to Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly's desk earlier this month. Among its provisions, the legislation would make offenses related to possession or personal use of drugs ineligible for civil asset forfeiture, require law enforcement agencies to notify county prosecutors of a request for forfeiture within 14 days, and limit when local police can let federal law enforcement "adopt" their forfeiture cases.

It would also require judges to consider whether a seizure is unconstitutionally excessive, put the burden of proof on prosecutors to show that the seizure was proportional to the offense, and allow some property owners to recoup legal costs when they successfully challenge a seizure.

A broad spectrum of civil liberties groups and think tanks supported the bill, arguing that Kansas' civil asset forfeiture process was unjustly tilted in the government's favor and against property owners. More than 30 states have reformed their asset forfeiture laws over the past decade because of complaints like these, but Kansas was not among them.

Under typical civil forfeiture laws, police can seize property when it's suspected of being connected to criminal activity, such as drug trafficking, even if the owner is never charged with a crime. Law enforcement groups say civil forfeiture is a vital tool for disrupting organized crime by targeting its illicit proceeds.

However, Sam MacRoberts, litigation director of the Kansas Justice Institute, says the reforms "were long overdue and desperately needed."

"Forfeiture is abusive and unjust," MacRoberts says. "Raising the burden of proof, limiting federal adoptions, and requiring the government to pay reasonable attorney fees to successful property owners—among other reforms—is a great start. We're hopeful this will cut down on some of the more abusive forfeiture cases."

One of those cases was the ordeal of Dewonna Goodridge, a 57-year-old Junction City resident whose 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe was seized by Geary County sheriff's deputies last year. The deputies had pulled over her son for several alleged traffic infractions, then seized the truck after a deputy claimed to find "shake" —small marijuana crumbs—in the center console, which was never collected for evidence. County prosecutors moved to seize Goodridge's truck, claiming it "represent[ed] the proceeds of illegal drug transactions, or was used, or intended to be used, to facilitate drug transactions."

It took eight months and representation from the Kansas Justice Institute before Goodridge got her truck back. (That's not unusual. A 2022 Americans for Prosperity report on Kansas' forfeiture laws found that people who were able to recover their seized property took an average of 419 days to get it back.)

Kansas law enforcement groups opposed several parts of the bill, and to obtain a bipartisan compromise legislators dropped a provision that would have added the ability to demand a jury trial 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 ruled that the seizure of property through civil forfeiture is "an essentially legal action that triggers the right" to a jury trial. 

The New Jersey Supreme Court also affirmed the right to jury trials in drug forfeiture cases in State v. One 1990 Honda Accord, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court followed suit in Commonwealth v. One 1984 Z-28 Camaro Coupe. The South Dakota Supreme Court cited both cases in State v. One 1969 Blue Pontiac Firebird and $4,403.83 in American Currency.

The lack of jury trial protections was a disappointment for supporters of the Kansas legislation, but MacRoberts says they will keep working for more reforms.

"The government should have to prove their case to a jury," he says. "We'll keep pressing ahead to make sure Kansans have their cases heard by their peers. There's more work to be done, but it's definitely a step in the right direction."

Comments

[sarcasmic]

In this state all forfeitures go to the state government, not the local municipalities or police departments. However whenever I read about a big bust, the department always, and I mean every single time, teams up with the federal DEA. Why? Because the Equitable Sharing Program skirts state law and allows the police departments to keep a share of what they steal from their victims.

I imagine police in Kansas will start doing the same thing.

[Rossami]

Read the article. This Kansas law "limit[s] when local police can let federal law enforcement 'adopt' their forfeiture cases."

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I am always suspicious of such unanimous votes. I wonder what the trick is. It reminds me of car reviews, always glowing in their praise of certain new models (BMW. Corvette) and all the problems they fixed from the prior models, which strangely enough were unknown to the magazine or web site until the new model came out.

[MWAocdoc]

All seizures should be banned unless criminal charges have been filed. All seized assets must be returned to the owner unless the owner has been convicted of a crime related to the seizure. Evidence seized as part of a criminal investigation must be returned after it is no longer guarded by chain of custody requirements for further legal actions or forfeited by the owner as part of the penalty from a conviction. Kansas and the rest of America still have a LONG way to go before we can say that asset forfeiture is no longer a violation of the due process clause in the Bill of Rights.

[sarcasmic]

Problem with seizing assets before trial is that it often means the victim has no resources left to use to hire a real attorney. As a result if they face trial they get a public pretender whose job is to get plea deals for the DA, not defend their client.

This of course was intentional.

[Graf Fuddington von Fuddrick]

Let me introduce you to the IRS.

[American Mongrel]

What are you going to do, call the cops?

[NM Dave]

Cops everywhere are going to cry like little girls over this, but their criminal conduct proved to us that they cannot be trusted to do the right thing. It's very telling that police opposed this law and the legislature had to drop the jury trial requirement when the cops steal property or cash from citizens, because, you know...juries are the enemy of cops.

[charliehall]

So defund police!

[emkcams]

What is the job of Police? The list includes: finding lawbreakers, gathering evidence at crime scenes, ensuring public safety when such is endangered by criminal activity or natural disasters. What should not be on the list: influencing or lobbying for legislative outcomes as part of their official duties.

[Medulla Oblongata]

There are a few instances where forfeiture works as originally intended, before it was expanded to be the first resort of police who cannot get a conviction otherwise.

A cop might see a drug dealer standing on a corner. The dealer sees the cop, takes off running, gets away. After breaking off the foot chase, the cops find a backpack along the route that contains drugs and cash. It matches the one the dealer was spotted with. What's to be done with the "evidence"? This seems reasonable that the cash be forfeited--no one can rationally claim it without admitting the corresponding drug crimes.

Using forfeiture to seize cash, vehicles, homes on flimsy basis like unprovable "suspicions" is just an abomination and should be eliminated entirely.

That seems unlikely, though, despite Kanas' possible progress. I've long said that if we are not going to eliminate it, we should fight hard to remove the perverse incentives. Cops and their departments should NEVER be allowed to use forfeitures as some sort of self-funding mechanism. Local, state, and federal general funds coffers should NEVER be able to count forfeitures as free spending cash. Let's say that forfeiture proceed should go into a victims restitution fund, with as many limitations as we can lay on it to prevent it from ever being used for LEO or general funds.