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.