SB 30-RETURN OF SEIZED PROPERTY  1:56:04 PM CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 30 and asked for a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS). SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to adopt the proposed CS for SB 30, labeled 27-LS0344\E, as the working document. CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes and asked the sponsor to tell the committee what the new CS does. 1:56:47 PM SENATOR FRED DYSON, sponsor of SB 30, stated that the committee reported the bill from committee on 3/21/11 and subsequent to that the Department of Law (DOL) contacted him to suggest a change in language. He agreed and the bill was returned to this committee to potentially adopt the proposed amendment. 1:57:21 PM CHARLES KOPP, staff to Senator Fred Dyson, explained that the amendment makes the following changes to version D: Page 2, line 6, insert the following sentence at the beginning of subsection (c): "At the hearing, a party that objects to the return of the property shall state the reason on the record." Page 2, line 11, delete the words "is authorized" and insert the word "needs" Page 2, line 12, following the word "property" insert the phrase "for evidentiary purposes as authorized in this chapter." Page 2, lines 13-18, delete the language in subsection (d) and insert the following language: If the court orders the return of the property to the crime victim, the court may impose reasonable conditions on the return. Those conditions may include an order that the crime victim retain and store the property so that the property is available for future court hearings, requiring photographs of the property to be taken, or any other condition the court considers necessary to maintain the evidentiary integrity of the property. 1:59:45 PM CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Carpeneti to discuss DOL's reasoning in suggesting the changes. 2:00:09 PM ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL) said Attorney General Burns believes that the language in subsection (d) of version D is too restrictive. DOL agreed and suggested a redraft to give the court more discretion in ordering conditions for the return of evidence in individual cases. CHAIR FRENCH noted a letter of support from the National Federation of Independent Businesses. He asked Mr. Moody if he had reviewed the bill and had any suggestions to offer. DOUGLAS MOODY, Assistant Public Defender, Public Defender Agency, said he believes that the language in subsection (c)(2) on page 2 will breed problems because the law enforcement agency and the defense are frequently are at odds as to whether the evidence should be retained. The defense should be able to make its own case at the hearing. CHAIR FRENCH asked what he is suggesting. MR. MOODY suggested the following language: the law enforcement agency for the defendant in a criminal case fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency, the defendant, or another interested party … We don't want DOL to carry our water, he said. It's our need and our burden and it should fall on us. 2:05:10 PM CHAIR FRENCH asked the sponsor to respond. MR. KOPP said he hasn't discussed this with the sponsor, but the suggested language seems to be consistent with the language in subsection (b) on page 1 as to who gets notice. SENATOR DYSON said he sees no harm listing the defense in the first paragraph on page 1. 2:07:53 PM CHAIR FRENCH called an at ease from 2:07 p.m. to 2:10 p.m. 2:10:57 PM CHAIR FRENCH said there's a suggestion to add both the prosecution and the defense on page 2, line 11. MR. KOPP pointed out that page 2, line 6, says that anyone who objects to the return of the evidence shall state the reason on the record. The inference is that it's coming before the court. CHAIR FRENCH said he believes it needs to be redrafted to say that the court has found that in the interest of justice it's appropriate to release the property. It seems odd to say all three have to overcome their own burden. 2:12:11 PM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said another suggestion is to replace "the law enforcement agency" with "the party that objects" to put the burden of the preponderance of the evidence onto that party. CHAIR FRENCH said that makes it clear. SENATOR PASKVAN said he agrees with that. CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Carpeneti what she thinks about Senator Wielechowski's suggested language. It keeps non interested parties from having to do anything. MS. CARPENETI said she'd prefer it says, "a party that objects" because there could be two parties. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked about adding "and a court finds that it is in the best interest to return…" because the judge may believe that the evidence should be retained even if no one came forward. CHAIR FRENCH said subsection (d) takes care of that when it says the court may impose reasonable conditions. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if this gives the court sufficient latitude. For example, if a pro se defendant doesn't show up for the hearing they haven't proved by a preponderance of the evidence but the court may still believe that it's in the best interest to retain the evidence. CHAIR FRENCH said judges aren't supposed to do that and the law enforcement agency will be present in any case. SENATOR DYSON reminded the committee that the bill relates to property crimes and it seeks to keep the victim from being victimized a second time. If there's a disagreement as to whether the property is returned, the judge decides. 2:16:03 PM CHAIR FRENCH announced he would hold SB 30 in committee awaiting a new draft.