HB 188:  FORFEITURE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY                                      
                                                                               
  GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY                           
  COMMITTEE, called the committee's attention to a draft                       
  committee substitute for HB 188, dated April 15, 1993                        
  (CSHB 188 (JUD)), which contained four changes from the                      
  original version of HB 188.  She said that the first                         
  difference appeared on page 3, line 13, and required the                     
  state to prove that real property was subject to forfeiture                  
  by "clear and convincing evidence."  She noted that the                      
  state had to prove that other types of property were subject                 
  to forfeiture by a showing of "a preponderance of the                        
  evidence."                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 070                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER clarified that the existing state                      
  forfeiture law imposed the standard of a "preponderance of                   
  the evidence."  House Bill 188 added the standard of "clear                  
  and convincing evidence" for forfeiture of real property.                    
                                                                               
  Number 076                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI commented that the next change was on page 3,                   
  line 20.  A sentence pertaining to notice had been deleted,                  
  she said, at the recommendation of Ms. Margot Knuth from the                 
  Department of Law (DOL).  The next change appeared on page 3                 
  as well, she said, and added a new subsection (c) on lines                   
  21-23.  The new subsection recognized a constitutional                       
  requirement that forfeiture proceedings be held in abeyance                  
  in the event that a criminal case was pending, so that a                     
  defendant would not be forced to incriminate him- or herself                 
  in the forfeiture case.                                                      
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that if a person was charged with                  
  a crime, and also had his or her property subject to                         
  forfeiture in connection with that crime, he or she might be                 
  forced to testify against his or her own interests in a                      
  forfeiture hearing, thereby negating his or her Fifth                        
  Amendment rights.  The change which Ms. Horetski had just                    
  mentioned addressed that concern.  Either the state or the                   
  defendant could request that forfeiture proceedings be                       
  postponed until after the criminal case had come to a close.                 
                                                                               
  Number 129                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked if the forfeiture itself                      
  would also be postponed.                                                     
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER replied in the affirmative.                                  
                                                                               
  Number 132                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. HORETSKI said that the final change which appeared in                    
  CSHB 188 (JUD) was the deletion of some language which had                   
  been contained in the original HB 188.  She noted that the                   
  phrase "or have reasonable cause to believe" had been                        
  omitted from page 7, line 2 of CSHB 188 (JUD), at the                        
  suggestion of the attorney general.                                          
                                                                               
  Number 151                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the deletion to which Ms.                     
  Horetski had just referred resulted in strengthened                          
  protection for innocent property-owners.                                     
                                                                               
  Number 172                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES made a MOTION to ADOPT                        
  CSHB 188 (JUD), dated April 15, 1993.  There being no                        
  objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.                                                
                                                                               
  Number 186                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER briefly explained the changes which Ms.                      
  Horetski had just discussed, for the benefit of                              
  Representative Nordlund who had just arrived.                                
                                                                               
  Number 199                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 188 (JUD)                    
  out of committee, with individual recommendations and a zero                 
  fiscal note.  There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.                   
                                                                               
  Number 210                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up                   
  HB 222 next.