Highlights 77th Texas Legislature - Senate

_________________________
JURISPRUDENCE
77 th Texas Legislature
Protection for Property Owners in Criminal Asset Forfeiture Proceedings - S.B. 563
by Senator Armbrister
House Sponsor: Representative Hinojosa
Bars an owner or interest holder's interest in property from being subject to forfeiture under the Texas Code
of Criminal Procedure if the owner or holder proves at the forfeiture hearing by a preponderance of the
evidence that the owner or holder was not a party to the offense giving rise to the forfeiture certain
conditions are met.
Requires an attorney representing the state to notify the owner or holder if the attorney has a reasonable
belief that the property subject to forfeiture meets the conditions.
Provides that an attorney representing the state is not liable for damages resulting from an act or omission
regarding such notification. The exclusive remedy for such failure is the submission of that failure as a
ground for new trial.
Authorizes a person in the possession of property at the time a peace officer seizes it under the criminal
forfeiture law to assert the person's interest in or right to the property. The peace officer may not at, the
time of seizure, request, require, or in any manner induce any person to execute a document purporting to
waive the person's interest in or rights to the property.
Sets forth requirements for education and training on criminal asset forfeiture proceedings for members of
law enforcement.
Seizure of Certain Assets in Criminal Forfeiture Proceedings - S.B. 626
by Senator Duncan
House Sponsor: Representative Averitt
Amends the civil asset forfeiture, which authorizes law enforcement to seize a criminal's assets, addressing
a controversy arising from the application of the forfeiture law when a third party has perfected a secured
interest in the assets, such as a bank that has accepted the assets as collateral in making loans. Under
current law, the lien holder must have acquired and perfected the security interest prior to or during the
commission of the offense, and, at the time, it did not know or have reason to know of the offense. Some
financial institutions alleged that forfeiture, by allowing law enforcement to seize assets in which the
institutions had perfected a security interest, in effect punished the lien holders for another’s criminal
activity. They also expressed concern that such seizures could jeopardize a bank’s liquidity.
Provides that an owner’s or interest holder’s interest in the property may not be suspended if the owner or
holder acquired and perfected the interest after the act or omission giving rise to the forfeiture, but before
seizure of the property, if the owner or holder:
• was, at the time the property was acquired, an owner or holder for value;
• had no reasonable cause to believe that the property was contraband and did not purposely avoid
learning the property was contraband.
Senate Research Center 191