s_jud_2017a_2017-02-15t13:33:58z1 Hearing Summary
Date: 02/15/2017
Location: RM 271
BILL SUMMARY for SB17-136
SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Votes: View--> | Action Taken: |
Adopt amendment L.001 (Attachment B). The motion p Adopt amendment L.003 (Attachment C). The motion p Adopt amendment L.004 (Attachment D). The motion p Postpone Senate Bill 17-136 indefinitely using a r Refer Senate Bill 17-136, as amended, to the Commi |
Pass Without Objection Pass Without Objection Pass Without Objection Pass Without Objection FAIL |
02:55 PM -- SB17-136
Senator Gardner explained the procedures that would be used during witness testimony for Senate Bill 17-136. Senator Neville and Senator Kagan, co-prime sponsors, presented Senate Bill 17-136, concerning civil forfeiture reform. Senator Neville explained the need for the bill and discussed its provisions. Senator Kagan provided information on past legislative reforms concerning asset forfeiture. Senator Neville explained the process for civil asset forfeiture in Colorado.
03:08 PM -- Mr. Daniel Culhane, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Culhane explained civil asset forfeiture, and the provisions of the bill. He stated that the bill provides for transparency. He responded to a question concerning the applicability of federal law to state and local police contacts. Senator Kagan commented on such a situation.
03:17 PM -- Mr. Thor Eells and Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock came to the table. Mr. Eells, representing the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, testified in opposition to the bill. He discussed transparency, and the requirements of law enforcement under the bill. He also discussed participation in federal investigations. He stated that the Colorado Municipal League opposes the bill.
03:23 PM -- Sheriff Tony Spurlock, representing the County Sheriffs of Colorado, testified in opposition to the bill. Sheriff Spurlock discussed the connection between human trafficking and asset forfeiture, and the benefit of asset forfeiture to other law enforcement initiatives. He responded to a question about the standard for law enforcement to seize assets.
Mr. Eells discussed the reasons that assets are seized. Mr. Eells responded to a question concerning asset seizure procedures and record keeping.
03:33 PM
Sheriff Spurlock responded to a question concerning the importance of asset seizure. Mr. Eells responded to a question concerning the bill's burden on law enforcement.
03:38 PM -- El Paso County Sheriff Bill Elder testified in opposition to the bill. He explained the benefit of asset forfeiture funds. He also discussed specific instances when asset forfeiture may be used. He responded to a question concerning federal forfeiture. He also responded to a question by discussing issues related to controlled substances in El Paso County. Senator Kagan stated that the bill would still allow for seizures. Sheriff Elder responded, and Senator Gardner commented on the effect of the bill. Sheriff Elder explained the effect of the bill on law enforcement.
03:49 PM -- Ms. Heather Carmosino and Captain Terry Manwaring came to the table. Captain Manwaring, representing the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, testified in opposition to the bill. He discussed his work on investigation units. He discussed specific instances where asset forfeiture was used.
03:53 PM -- Ms. Heather Carmosino, representing the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, testified in opposition to the bill. She discussed the benefits of asset forfeiture, and explained opposition to specific provisions of the bill.
03:56 PM -- Mr. Mike Rankin and Deputy Chief Mark Savage came to the table. Mr. Mike Rankin, Director of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, testified in opposition to the bill. He spoke favorably of prior testimony. He discussed the benefits of partnering in federal programs.
04:00 PM -- Colorado State Patrol (CSP) Deputy Chief Mark Savage testified in opposition to the bill. He stated that CSP files criminal charges in every case of asset forfeiture, and discussed the benefits of asset forfeiture. Deputy Chief Savage responded to a question from Senator Neville relating to the programs funded by CSP forfeitures.
Director Rankin, in response to a question, explained the process for state asset forfeiture and federal asset forfeiture.
04:07 PM -- Mr. Tom Raynes, Mr. Scott Turner, and Mr. Dan May, came to the table. Mr. Raynes, representing the Colorado District Attorneys' Council, testified in opposition to the bill. He spoke favorably of prior testimony.
04:09 PM -- Mr. Scott Turner, representing the Colorado Attorney General's Office, testified in opposition to the bill. He discussed how the bill would impact investigations.
04:10 PM -- Fourth Judicial District Attorney Dan May testified in opposition to the bill. He discussed the cost of forfeitures. Mr. May stated that the bill attempts to dictate federal policy. He responded to a question concerning wrongful forfeiture.
04:14 PM -- Mr. Ray Padilla, representing the Colorado Drug Investigators Association, testified in opposition to the bill. He explained the process for drug investigations and associated forfeitures. Mr. Padilla and Senator Neville discussed specific provisions of the bill.
04:21 PM -- Chief Mike Phibbs, representing the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, testified in opposition to the bill. He commented on the effect of the bill on confidential informants.
04:23 PM -- Ms. Zoe Wagner, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. She discussed her experience having assets seized. She responded to a question concerning her experience.
04:26 PM -- Mr. Burt Wagner, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. He discussed his experience having his assets seized. Mr. Wagner also claimed that reporting is not public, and he discussed the difficulty of recovering forfeited assets. In response to questions, Mr. Wagner clarified facts surrounding his situation having assets seized.
04:32 PM -- Ms. Jean Wagner, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. She discussed her experience having assets seized. Ms. Wagner also discussed the cost of fighting asset forfeiture, and the cost to the government of defending seizure. She discussed asset forfeiture, generally. She responded to a question concerning the agencies that seized her funds.
04:39 PM -- Mr. Jason Warf, representing the Southern Colorado Cannabis Council, testified in support of SB 17-136. Mr. Warf discussed what typically happens when law enforcement seizes assets, particularly when a medical marijuana facility is raided. Mr. Warf discussed trends in prosecution of drug crimes.
04:42 PM -- Ms. Jessica LeRoux, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. Ms. LeRoux recounted abuses of the asset forfeiture process at the local level, and discussed the impact of local zoning laws on asset forfeiture.
04:47 PM -- Ms. Jeri Shepherd, representing Colorado NORML, testified in support of the bill. She discussed possible civil asset forfeiture reforms.
04:49 PM -- Mr. Greg Duran, representing the Cannabis Patients Alliance, testified in support of the bill. He discussed his concerns over public perception of law enforcement.
04:54 PM -- Ms. Denise Maes, representing the ACLU of Colorado, testified in support of the bill. She discussed her opposition to asset forfeiture, generally. Ms. Maes provided information relating to asset forfeiture processes. Senator Gardner commented on Ms. Maes' testimony. In response to questions, Ms. Maes discussed the ACLU's efforts to obtain documents relating to civil asset forfeiture from the Department of Regulatory Agencies.
05:00 PM -- Mr. Jimi McFarland, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. Mr. McFarland discussed asset forfeiture and his observations on prior testimony. He stated that the bill was a good compromise between the interests of law enforcement and civil liberties.
05:04 PM -- Mr. Dan Egeland, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Egeland discussed funding law enforcement agencies, including the impact of asset forfeiture on agency funding.
05:06 PM -- Mr. Lee McGrath, representing the Institute for Justice, testified in support of the bill. He discussed asset forfeiture, generally, and the policies in other states.
05:14 PM -- Mr. Derek Smith, representing himself, testified in support of the bill.
05:15 PM
Senator Neville provided closing remarks on the bill, including reading testimony from the American Legislative Exchange Council.
05:24 PM
Senator Kagan provided closing remarks on the bill. Senator Kagan distributed amendments L.001 (Attachment B), L.003 (Attachment C), and L.004 (Attachment D).
17SenateJud0215AttachB.pdf 17SenateJud0215AttachC.pdf
17SenateJud0215AttachD.pdf
BILL: | SB17-136 | |
TIME: | 05:30:28 PM | |
MOVED: | Kagan | |
MOTION: | Adopt amendment L.001 (Attachment B). The motion passed without objection. | |
SECONDED: | ||
VOTE
|
||
Aguilar
|
||
Coram
|
||
Kagan
|
||
Cooke
|
||
Gardner
|
||
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection
|
BILL: | SB17-136 | |
TIME: | 05:32:44 PM | |
MOVED: | Kagan | |
MOTION: | Adopt amendment L.004 (Attachment D). The motion passed without objection. | |
SECONDED: | ||
VOTE
|
||
Aguilar
|
||
Coram
|
||
Kagan
|
||
Cooke
|
||
Gardner
|
||
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection
|
BILL: | SB17-136 | |
TIME: | 05:34:04 PM | |
MOVED: | Kagan | |
MOTION: | Adopt amendment L.003 (Attachment C). The motion passed without objection. | |
SECONDED: | ||
VOTE
|
||
Aguilar
|
||
Coram
|
||
Kagan
|
||
Cooke
|
||
Gardner
|
||
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection
|
05:34 PM
Committee members discussed their positions on the bill.
BILL: | SB17-136 | |
TIME: | 05:35:11 PM | |
MOVED: | Kagan | |
MOTION: | Refer Senate Bill 17-136, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. The motion failed on a vote of 2-3. | |
SECONDED: | ||
VOTE
|
||
Aguilar
|
Yes
|
|
Coram
|
No
|
|
Kagan
|
Yes
|
|
Cooke
|
No
|
|
Gardner
|
No
|
|
YES: 2 NO: 3 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL
|
BILL: | SB17-136 | |
TIME: | 05:38:57 PM | |
MOVED: | Cooke | |
MOTION: | Postpone Senate Bill 17-136 indefinitely using a reversal of the previous roll call. There was no objection to the use of the reverse roll call, therefore, the bill was postponed indefinitely. | |
SECONDED: | ||
VOTE
|
||
Aguilar
|
||
Coram
|
||
Kagan
|
||
Cooke
|
||
Gardner
|
||
Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection
|