Michigan lawmakers all have a record –
MichiganVotes.org is its keeper.
MichiganVotes.org is its keeper.
Legislation watch
2019 Senate Bill 2: Require conviction for seized property forfeiture
Public Act 7 of 2019
Introduced by Sen. Peter Lucido (R) on January 15, 2019
To establish that property seized from a person because it may be associated with a suspected drug-related crime is not subject to “civil asset forfeiture” unless the individual is actually convicted or accepts a plea bargain. This would not apply to police seizures of property worth $50,000 or more. The bill also authorizes a process allowing individuals who have lower value property seized to just give it up, and revises procedural details for reimbursement claims by a person with an ownership interest in the seized property (for example the issuer of a vehicle loan). Official Text and Analysis.
To establish that property seized from a person because it may be associated with a suspected drug-related crime is not subject to “civil asset forfeiture” unless the individual is actually convicted or accepts a plea bargain. This would not apply to police seizures of property worth $50,000 or more. The bill also authorizes a process allowing individuals who have lower value property seized to just give it up, and revises procedural details for reimbursement claims by a person with an ownership interest in the seized property (for example the issuer of a vehicle loan). Official Text and Analysis.
Referred to the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee on January 15, 2019
Reported in the Senate on January 29, 2019
With the recommendation that the bill pass.
With the recommendation that the bill pass.
Passed 36 to 2 in the Senate on February 13, 2019.
See Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No".
See Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No".
Received in the House on February 13, 2019
Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on February 13, 2019
Reported in the House on February 26, 2019
Without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
Without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
Amendment offered by Rep. Julie Brixie (D) on April 23, 2019
To revise a detail regarding forfeiture actions where the owner or a person with an interest in the seized property withdraws their claims to it.
To revise a detail regarding forfeiture actions where the owner or a person with an interest in the seized property withdraws their claims to it.
The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on April 23, 2019
Passed 107 to 3 in the House on April 24, 2019.
See Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No".
To establish that property seized from a person because it may be associated with a crime is not subject to “civil asset forfeiture” unless the individual is actually convicted or accepts a plea bargain, subject various exceptions and conditions. (Exceptions include different procedures for persons with an ownership interest in the property who were not involved with the crime; cases where the offender has absconded to another state; and more.) This would not apply to police seizures of property worth $50,000 or more. See also House Bills 4001 and 4002.
See Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No".
To establish that property seized from a person because it may be associated with a crime is not subject to “civil asset forfeiture” unless the individual is actually convicted or accepts a plea bargain, subject various exceptions and conditions. (Exceptions include different procedures for persons with an ownership interest in the property who were not involved with the crime; cases where the offender has absconded to another state; and more.) This would not apply to police seizures of property worth $50,000 or more. See also House Bills 4001 and 4002.
Received in the Senate on April 25, 2019
Passed 38 to 0 in the Senate on April 25, 2019.
See Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No".
To concur with the House-passed version of the bill.
See Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No".
To concur with the House-passed version of the bill.
Signed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer on May 9, 2019
