BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 639
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 639 (Norby)
As Amended May 27, 2011
Majority vote
PUBLIC SAFETY 6-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Ammiano, Knight, Cedillo, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, |
| |Hagman, Hill, Mitchell | |Blumenfield, Bradford, |
| | | |Charles Calderon, Davis, |
| | | |Donnelly, Gatto, Hall, |
| | | |Hill, Lara, Mitchell, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Solorio, |
| | | |Wagner |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | |Nays:|Campos |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Reforms drug asset forfeiture law to discourage federal
adoption of such cases. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that property is "seized" as soon as the agency takes
control or possession of it.
2)Prohibits state law enforcement, except by court order, from
turning over seized assets to the Federal Government, or seizing
them jointly with federal officers, thereby making seized
property subject to federal civil forfeiture law rather than
state law.
3)Prohibits the court from entering an order authorizing a transfer
to federal authorities unless:
a) It reasonably appears the criminal conduct is interstate in
nature and sufficiently complex to justify transfer;
b) The seized property is only subject to forfeiture under
federal law; or,
c) The pursuit of state forfeiture would unduly burden state
prosecutors or law enforcement.
AB 639
Page 2
4)Requires the court to provide the owner of property a right to be
heard before a case is transferred to federal authorities.
5)Provides that if assets are transferred in violation of these
provisions, the transferring agency shall be liable to the state
for a fine of up to 24% of the amount illegally transferred.
6)Provides that the report to be generated by the Department of
Justice (DOJ) about forfeiture actions be published in book form
and also be made available to the public via electronic reports.
7)Requires DOJ to include additional information in its annual
report, specifically:
a) The number of forfeiture actions initiated under federal
law in which a state or local agency had a role, and a
description of the role served in each federal forfeiture
action by each participating state or local agency, including,
but not be limited to, the following information:
i) The seizure date; the date state or local authorities
transferred to federal authorities, if applicable; and the
date on which forfeiture was ordered or declared;
ii) The case number assigned by federal authorities, if
known;
iii) Whether the state or local agency originated
information leading to a seizure or federal forfeiture
action;
iv) Whether the state or local agency supplied unique or
indispensable assistance to the federal forfeiture action,
and a description of the assistance;
v) The number of hours expended by the state or local
agency on the case; and,
vi) Whether a federal agency has classified the federal
forfeiture case as a "joint" seizure and forfeiture action,
or as an "adoption" by federal authorities of a case
initiated by a state or local agency, if that classification
is known.
AB 639
Page 3
b) The value of assets forfeited under federal law in each
case in which a state or local agency had a role;
c) The value of all shares of assets forfeited under federal
law that are returned to a state or local agency that had a
role in the federal forfeiture action, and the date of receipt
of the shares; and,
d) A complete description by state and local agencies that
receive assets forfeited under federal law of the purposes for
which all the forfeited assets were designated or used, and
the dates of all disbursements for each purpose.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee,
unknown, potentially moderate asset forfeiture revenue reduction to
state and local law enforcement as a result of making it more
difficult to use more lenient federal forfeiture procedures. Under
federal law, up to 80% of forfeiture proceeds go to seizing
agencies, with at least 20% to the federal government. For
example, DOJ currently receives more than $2 million annually from
federal asset forfeitures. As would be the case for local law
enforcement, some percentage of this amount would likely be lost.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "AB 639 reduces the financial
incentives in asset forfeiture laws for local law enforcement to
recommend the prosecution of Californians under federal law when
state law can be used. The incentives exist because federal
programs return a greater percentage of forfeited proceeds to the
budgets of local law enforcement than the State. In other words,
Californians are facing different types of enforcement actions
because different incentives in asset forfeiture programs
established by the state and federal governments encourage local
law enforcement to circumvent state law."
Please see the policy committee for a full discussion of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
FN: 0001029
AB 639
Page 4