This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.
Fiscal Note - SB 0863 - Restricts Transfer of Forfeited Property to Feds
L.R. NO. 3023-01
BILL NO. SB 863
SUBJECT: Forfeited Property
TYPE: Original
DATE: February 13, 1996
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
Drug Forfeiture
Fund ($346,000) ($346,000) ($346,000)
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
State Funds ($346,000) ($346,000) ($346,000)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
None
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
Federal Funds $0 $0 $0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
Local Government Unknown Unknown Unknown
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Officials of the Office of the Attorney General, State Public Defender and
Department of Public Safety - Liquor Control assume that this proposal would
have no fiscal impact to their agencies.
Officials of the Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Highway Patrol
(MSHP) stated that currently, many cases are plea bargained, and civil
forfeiture accounts for funds or property are being relinquished. This
proposal would prohibit this practice and would reduce federal drug
forfeiture revenue by an estimated 30% - 50%. From 1990 to 1995, MSHP's
average receipts were about $865,000, which would reduce their average annual
revenue from $260,000 to $432,000. For purposes of this fiscal note, an
average of 40% loss was used, which would be an annual loss of revenue of
$346,000 ($865,000 x 40%) to the Drug Forfeiture Fund.
Officials of the Office of the St. Louis County Prosecutor assume that this
proposal would reduce expenditures on new law enforcement programs and
equipment, because law enforcement agencies use the seized money for those
types of projects. St. Louis County Prosecutor staff also stated that this
proposal would increase the amount of money going into the state School Fund
by a slightly larger amount than what the law enforcement agencies would have
received.
Officials of the Office of Prosecution Services verbally stated that this
proposal would result in an undeterminable amount of loss to law enforcement
agencies, but would also result in an unknown increase to the School Fund.
Officials of the Kansas City Police Department assume that this proposal
would result in a decrease in asset forfeiture revenues of $20,000 annually.
FISCAL IMPACT - State Government FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
(10 Mo.)
DRUG FORFEITURE FUND
Loss-Department of Public Safety -
Missouri State Highway Patrol
Revenue from federal drug forfeitures ($346,000) ($346,000) ($346,000)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT TO
DRUG FORFEITURE FUND ($346,000) ($346,000) ($346,000)
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
(10 Mo.)
Income-School Fund
Increased State Forfeitures Unknown Unknown Unknown
Loss-Law Enforcement Agencies
Decreased Federal Forfeitures (Unknown) (Unknown) (Unknown)
DESCRIPTION
This proposal would prohibit state and local law enforcement authorities from
transferring seized property to a federal agency except in cases where the
federal felony charge was the only charge asserted against the property
owner.
Current law allows a judge to approve transfer of seized property to the
federal government if it appears that the activity resulting in the criminal
investigation involves more than one state or if it appears the seizure would
be better pursued under federal forfeiture statutes.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other
program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental
space.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Highway Patrol
Department of Public Safety - Liquor Control
Office of the Attorney General
Office of Prosecution Services
Office of the State Public Defender
St. Louis County Prosecutor
Kansas City Police Department
NOT RESPONDING - St. Louis County Police Department and Jackson County
Prosecutor