SB 0062 - Fiscal Note

Fiscal Note - SB 0062 - Allows forfeiture or impoundment of motor vehicles for certain DWI offenses

COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH

OVERSIGHT DIVISION

FISCAL NOTE

L.R. NO. 0432-01

BILL NO. SB 62

SUBJECT: Forfeitures of Vehicles

TYPE: Original

DATE: January 18, 1999

.

---

FISCAL SUMMARY

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
#Total Estimated Net Effect on All State Funds	$0	$0	$0

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
Total Estimated Net Effect on All Federal Funds	$0	$0	$0

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
Total Estimated Net Effect on Local Funds	$0 to Unknown	$0 to Unknown	$0 to Unknown

Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses

This fiscal note contains 5 pages.

FISCAL ANALYSIS

ASSUMPTION

The Department of Transportation (DHT), Department of Revenue (DOR), Department of Public Safety-Division of Highway Safety, Missouri Highway Patrol (MHP) and Attorney General (AGO) do not expect any fiscal impact.

The Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS) assumes that the workload and budget of the judiciary would be impacted based of the number of additional case filings. The increase would not be significant.

The State Public Defender (SPD) assumes it would need additional FTE (ie, 4 Assistant Public Defenders, 1.5 Paralegal/Investigator, and 1 Legal Secretary) to handle the additional caseload that is anticipated as a result of this proposal. Officials stated that in FY1998 the State Public Defender System provided representation in 6,265 Driving While suspended or Revoked cases and 4,446 Driving While Intoxicated cases. If just 5% of the Driving While Intoxicated cases now want a trial, instead of pleading, (in order to protect their car), the State Public Defender System will require an additional 4 attorneys - 4,446*5% = 222 additional trials at a minimum of 40 hours each = 8,880 additional attorney hours divided by 2,080 hours per work year yields 4 additional attorneys.

SPD officials estimate costs to General Revenue for salaries, fringe benefits, and equipment and expense in FY2000 at $270,655; in FY2001 at $287,702, and $295, 087 in FY2002.

Oversight assumes that this proposal could have an indirect effect on the SPD by causing some cases to be more protracted. Forfeiture proceedings could be initiated in any case where the motor vehicle was operated by a person with one or more prior convictions for intoxicated related traffic offenses; who is prohibited from obtaining a license from the DOR; or who has a suspended or revoked license as a result of a guilty plea for an intoxicated traffic offense or involuntary manslaughter. If this proposal were enacted, it is assumed that persons would be more inclined to fight the charge and go to trial instead of plea bargaining to a lesser offense.

Thus, these cases in which the SPD provides representation could become more protracted. However, since the forfeiture proceedings would be a civil matter, and the SPD does not provide representation in civil matters, the SPD would not be directly impacted by this proposal. The fiscal impact to the SPD has been shown as zero. Oversight assumes if the workload would be greater than anticipated the SPD could justify the additional need for FTE through the budgetary process.

Given that the language of the proposal is permissive, Oversight has ranged income and costs from $0 to Unknown at the local level. It was also assumed that the net fiscal impact would be

ASSUMPTION (continued)

positive since the language provides that the owner or operator of the vehicle would be responsible for all costs associated with the seizure, towing, storage and impoundment of the vehicle as well as all court costs and reasonable attorney fees. In all likelihood, forfeiture proceedings would not be initiated at the local level if the outcome were not going to be positive.

In response to identical legislation from last session, the Office of Prosecution Services (OPS) would not anticipate a direct fiscal impact. However, since the city or county attorney would be responsible for conducting the forfeiture proceedings, there could be an increase in workload, but the impact on any particular county would be unknown.

In response to identical legislation from last session, the City of St. Louis assumes that there would not be a significant fiscal impact as a result of this proposal. The city would not expect any fiscal impact in excess of $100,000. Additionally, there could be an increase in collections, but the amount would not be significant.

FISCAL IMPACT - State Government	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
	(10 Mo.)
	$0	$0	$0
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
	(10 Mo.)
LOCAL
Income-City/County
Collections from Forfeiture	$0	$0	$0
	to	to	to
	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Costs-City/County Attorney
Conducting Forfeiture Proceedings	$0	$0	$0
	to	to	to
	(Unknown)	(Unknown)	(Unknown)
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government	FY 1999	FY 2000	FY 2001
(continued)	(10 Mo.)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON	$0	$0	$0
LOCAL FUNDS	to	to	to
	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business
This proposal would not have a direct fiscal impact on small businesses.

DESCRIPTION

The proposal would allow any governing body of any city or county, in addition to the forfeiture proceedings of the Criminal Activity Forfeiture Act, to enact by ordinance, forfeiture procedures for any motor vehicle operated by a person with one or more prior convictions for intoxication related traffic offenses; who is prohibited from obtaining a license from the Department of Revenue (DOR); or who has a suspended or revoked license as the result of a guilty plea for an intoxicated traffic offense or involuntary manslaughter. The ordinance could also provide for impoundment and forfeiture of a motor vehicle if the person is classified as a prior or persistent offender; who has previously been convicted of two or more intoxicated related traffic offenses; or who has refused to take a chemical test. All forfeitures proceedings would be conducted in accordance with the Criminal Activity Forfeiture Act except by the city or county attorney.

Procedures would be established to provide for another individual claiming an ownership interest as well as not being the operator of the vehicle at the time. The non-operator or operator would be responsible for all costs associated with the seizure, towing, storage and impoundment along with court costs and reasonable attorney fees. The owner would be required to sign a written agreement with the city or county attorney to consent to seizure, impoundment and forfeiture of the vehicle if the vehicle is operated by the same operator again.

This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program, would not require additional capital improvements or rental space and would not impact total state revenue.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Department of Revenue

Attorney General

Office of State Courts Administrator

State Public Defender

SOURCES OF INFORMATION (continued)

Office of Prosecution Services

Department of Public Safety-Missouri Highway Patrol

Department of Transportation

St. Louis City

NOT RESPONDING:

Jeanne Jarrett, CPA

Director

January 18,1999