Legislature(2015 - 2016)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/13/2016 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB27 | |
| HB308 | |
| SB212 | |
| SB187 | |
| HB8 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 308 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 212 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 126 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 212-FORFEITURE: NO CIVIL IN REM; ONLY CRIMINAL
2:35:26 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced the consideration of SB 212. She noted
that this is the first hearing.
2:35:29 PM
FORREST WOLFE, Staff, Senator McGuire, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, introduced SB 212 on behalf of the sponsor
speaking to the following prepared statement:
Senate Bill 212 protects the private property rights
of innocent citizens by requiring that Alaska's
revered and dedicated law enforcement agencies, charge
individuals with a crime before permanently seizing
private property
Across the nation, civil asset forfeiture laws have
gained notoriety in recent years for rampant abuse and
deliberate circumvention of due process. Well-
documented cases of policing for profit have sparked a
wave of reform nationwide.
SB 212 is a step in the right direction in protecting
private citizens' property rights and affirming the
integrity of law enforcement.
2:36:30 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked for an explanation of in rem forfeiture
actions.
MR. WOLFE deferred the question to the drafter.
2:36:56 PM
MEGAN WALLACE, Legislative Attorney, Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, explained that in rem is an action
brought against a piece of property as opposed to against a
person.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked Mr. Sandberg to comment on the bill.
2:37:55 PM
PETER SANDBERG, Attorney, Ingaldson Maassen Fitzgerald,
explained that SB 212 is intended to ensure that people don't
unjustly lose their property in a civil proceeding. If there is
going to be forfeiture of property, it will happen through the
criminal process. He noted that Mr. Skidmore would probably say
that civil in rem forfeiture isn't used in Alaska, but cases
from the late 1990s and early 2000s make it clear that it was
used. In some of those cases the people were acquitted and still
lost their property.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if this is a problem in Alaska.
MR. SANDBERG said there is no single procedure for forfeiture in
Alaska law and he believes that most people would say it's
fundamentally unfair to be acquitted of a crime and still have
your property taken. He read the summary of the Waste v. State
decision that is the case law on the matter.
CHAIR MCGUIRE referenced an article in the packet that refers to
a U.S. Supreme Court ruling tossing out Alvarez v. Smith. She
said that was a challenge to a portion of the asset forfeiture
law in Illinois allowing government to keep seized property for
up to six months before giving an owner a day in court.
2:43:10 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted an article indicating that in rem
forfeiture is a civil method of law enforcement for Indian
tribes. He expressed interest in knowing if that's an issue in
Alaska.
2:43:29 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE held SB 212 in committee for future consideration.