Lawmakers are backing away from requiring someone be convicted of a felony before seizing their property.
A conference committee is expected to take up the issue one more time Monday. But last week they significantly watered down House Bill 126, which would have made it harder for law enforcement to take vehicles, houses, currency and other valuables as part of an investigation.
The bill as it stands now would allow seizures, or asset forfeiture, as long as someone has been charged with a crime.
Rep. David Tarnas, who is taking the House’s lead in negotiating HB 126, described the Senate’s version of the bill calling for conviction of a felony before forfeiture as ambitious.
“I think I am taking a more modest approach, but I think we have a similar goal in mind — to reform our civil asset forfeiture system within the state,” Tarnas, the House Judiciary chair, told Sen. Karl Rhoads, the Senate Judiciary chair, at a conference committee hearing at the State Capitol.
Tarnas said a criminal charge rather than a felony conviction as “the trigger” for forfeiture is “a step in the right direction” toward the Senate version of the draft. He said under current law only an arrest or search is needed for forfeiture, “and I think we do need to move away from that.”
Tarnas also wants to include a provision in the bill that, “if no such charge is filed within one year from the date of seizure, all property that has been properly claimed shall be returned to the claimant. We’re trying to put a timeline on this so it’s more fair.”
The latest version of HB 126 also directs proceeds from the forfeitures to be divided among state and local investigative agencies involved in cases where property is taken.
Rhoads, who pushed for the felony conviction and would prefer the proceeds go into the state’s general fund, did not comment on the changes. But he said he would review Tarnas’ new draft.
One organization that had been hoping the Legislature puts in place better safeguards against asset seizure is The ACLU of Hawaiʻi. The group opposes Tarnas’ proposed change.
“Hawaiʻi’s civil asset forfeiture law is regarded as among the worst in the nation,” policy director Carrie Ann Shirota said in an email Saturday.
She pointed to a Hawaiʻi State Auditor report that found property was forfeited without a corresponding criminal charge in 26% of asset forfeiture cases in fiscal year 2015.
“This means that during that period, in more than a quarter of all civil property forfeiture cases, not only was there no conviction, but no criminal charges were even filed,” Shirota said. “Hawaiʻi has earned the dubious distinction of a D-minus grade by the Institute for Justice for our draconian civil asset forfeiture law.”
Shirota urged legislators to “rein in this abuse of power and change the law to include the conviction standard. In short, we should aim for an A grade, not a C-minus.”
The Hawaiʻi Attorney General’s Office and the Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office oppose any change to the state’s forfeiture law, which they describe as an essential tool in criminal investigations.
The House and Senate committees are scheduled to discuss the bill again publicly Monday afternoon, and it is possible for the Senate to propose its own amendments if it does not like the House’s latest draft. No testimony is allowed during conference.
The Legislature has until the end of this week to reach agreement on several hundred measures. Typically, many bills die during the conference committee period, in part because time runs out before.
The 2025 session of the Legislature is set to wrap up May 2.
Full article can be found at: https://www.civilbeat.org/2025/04/watered-down-property-seizure-bill-mov...