This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.
Fiscal Note - SJR 006 - Forfeiture proceeds shall be divided between school fund and Public Safety Dept.
SJR 6 - Fiscal Note

COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH

OVERSIGHT DIVISION

FISCAL NOTE

L.R. NO. 0519-03

BILL NO. SJR 6

SUBJECT: Constitutional Amendment: Criminal Forfeiture Procedures

TYPE: Original

DATE: January 19, 1999

FISCAL SUMMARY

ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS

FUND AFFECTED FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
General Revenue $0 ($59,600) $0
Criminal Forfeiture $0 Unknown Unknown
Drug Forfeiture $0 ($500,000) ($1,000,000)
Total Estimated

Net Effect on All State Funds

 $0 (Unknown) to Unknown (Unknown) to Unknown



ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS

FUND AFFECTED FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
$0 $0 $0
Total Estimated

Net Effect on All Federal Funds

 $0 $0 $0



ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS

FUND AFFECTED FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
Local Government $0 Unknown to (Unknown) Unknown to (Unknown)

Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses

This fiscal note contains 5 pages.

FISCAL ANALYSIS

ASSUMPTION

Officials of the Department of Revenue and the State Courts Administrator stated that the proposal would not affect their agencies administratively.

Officials of the Missouri State Water Patrol, the Missouri State Highway Patrol, the Department of Natural Resources note that their agencies could be eligible to receive monies from distributions of criminal forfeitures.

Officials of the Missouri State Highway note that their agency has received over $1,000,000 per year to the Drug Forfeiture Fund from Federal Equitable Sharing Funds. They would not be allowed to accept funds through the Federal Equitable Sharing Program under terms of this proposal. They also note that some activities and equipment funded through Drug Forfeiture Fund appropriations would have to be funded through other sources.

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education officials noted that the State School Moneys Fund received $900,363.69 in FY 1998 from penalties and court awards, but can not say how much was as result of criminal forfeitures.

Oversight assumes the amount deposited into the newly created Criminal Forfeiture fund may be greater or less than the amount now deposited into the Drug Forfeiture fund and the various local law enforcement agency funds. Currently, when a federal agency is involved in a forfeiture, it keeps at least 20% of the amount of property seized, and distributes the rest to the law enforcement agency or agencies involved. Without this retention by the federal agency, the Criminal Forfeiture fund could receive more money than is currently deposited into the Drug Forfeiture fund and any local law enforcement agency funds. However, federal laws are more lenient than Missouri laws regarding seizure and forfeiture, and there are cases where property can be seized and forfeited under federal laws and cannot under state laws. In these instances, the state's law enforcement agencies currently receive a portion of the forfeiture proceeds, and without the possibility of using the Federal Equitable Sharing program, the Criminal Forfeiture fund may actually be receiving less forfeiture money than is currently received.

In addition, it appears this proposal does not allow local law enforcement agencies to receive a share of forfeiture proceeds. Currently, several local law enforcement agencies receive money under the Federal Equitable Sharing Agreement, with some receiving up to $1,000,000 a year. Oversight assumes this proposal would result in an unknown loss of revenue to local law enforcement agencies, as that money would instead be deposited into the Criminal Forfeiture fund.

ASSUMPTION (continued)

Advertisement costs for the proposal would be $3,990 per newspaper column inch for three

publications of the text of the proposal, the introduction, title, fiscal note summary, and affidavit. The proposal would be on the ballot for the November 2000 general election.



FISCAL IMPACT - State Government FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
GENERAL REVENUE
Cost to General Revenue Fund
Secretary of State
Newspaper Advertisements $0 ($59,600) $0
NET EFFECT ON GENERAL
REVENUE FUND $0 ($59,600) $0
DRUG FORFEITURE FUND
Loss-Monies deposited in Criminal Forfeiture
Fund $0 ($500,000) ($1,000,000)
NET EFFECT ON DRUG FORFEITURE
FUND $0 ($500,000) ($1,000,000)
CRIMINAL FORFEITURE FUND
Income-Monies from Drug Forfeiture Fund $0 Unknown Unknown
NET EFFECT ON CRIMINAL
FORFEITURE FUND $0 Unknown Unknown
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Change in distributions from State School
Moneys Fund $0 Unknown Unknown
to to
(Unknown) (Unknown)
NET EFFECT ON SCHOOL DISTRICTS $0 Unknown Unknown
to to
(Unknown) (Unknown)
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
Loss of forfeiture proceeds $0 (Unknown) (Unknown)
NET EFFECT ON LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES $0 (Unknown) (Unknown)
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business
No direct fiscal effect on small businesses would be expected due to this proposal.


DESCRIPTION

This proposal would divide proceeds from forfeitures for violations of criminal laws as follows: 50% to the State School Moneys Fund; and 50% to the Department of Public Safety Forfeiture

Fund to be used for law enforcement purposes as provided by law.

The proposal would prohibit Missouri law enforcement agencies from accepting forfeiture proceeds or funds by other means.

This proposal is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental space. This proposal would not affect Total State Revenues.



SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Department of Public Safety

State Highway Patrol

State Water Patrol

Department of Revenue

Department of Natural Resources

Secretary of State

State Courts Administrator





Jeanne Jarrett, CPA

Director

January 19, 1999