WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 2502

Administrative forfeiture; reenact section repealed on July 1, 2018, amend notice and contest procedures.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Daniel Sparks

Reenacts the administrative forfeiture framework to let authorities seize assets tied to crime, while overhauling owner notice and how contests are heard.

Died In Committee
#judiciary #divisiona
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 2502

SB 2502 — Administrative forfeiture (Introduced March 13, 2025) — Summary

Note on source material and scope
- The materials provided do not include the bill’s full text. The title and filing metadata describe an administrative-forfeiture measure to “reenact section repealed on July 1, 2018” and to “amend notice and contest procedures.” Because full statutory language was not provided, the summary below describes the bill’s apparent intent and the kinds of specific changes such a bill would make; where language is inferred or typical, that is noted.

Main purpose and intent

  • To restore (reenact) a provision of law governing administrative forfeiture that had previously been repealed effective July 1, 2018, and to revise the procedures for providing notice to property owners and for contesting administrative forfeiture actions.
  • The intended effect is to re-establish an administrative (non-judicial) process for state or local authorities to seize and forfeit property allegedly connected to criminal activity while altering how owners are notified and how they challenge forfeiture.

Key provisions (based on title and typical structure)

  • Reenactment: Restores the previously repealed statutory section governing administrative forfeiture, thereby re-authorizing seizures and forfeitures under administrative procedures rather than, or in addition to, judicial forfeiture.
  • Notice requirements (amended): Likely changes to the content, timing, or method(s) of serving notice to property owners (for example, expanded service methods, longer/shorter notice windows, or specific statutory language about what the notice must contain).
  • Contest procedures (amended): Likely modifies how an owner may contest an administrative forfeiture — including deadlines to file a contest, required form/content of the contest, standards of proof, whether the contest triggers a judicial hearing or administrative hearing, and allocation of burdens (e.g., presumptions about ownership or innocent-owner defenses).
  • Administrative deadlines and conversion to judicial forfeiture: The bill may set or modify timeframes after which an administrative action converts into a judicial proceeding if contested, or it may provide expedited timelines for resolution.
  • Recordkeeping and audit or reporting provisions: May require agencies to maintain records on administrative forfeitures and provide periodic reports (common in such statutes).

Who would be affected

  • Property owners whose money, vehicles, real property, or other assets are seized by law enforcement as potentially connected to criminal activity.
  • Law enforcement agencies and prosecuting authorities that use forfeiture as an enforcement and asset-recovery tool.
  • Courts and administrative tribunals to the extent contests are moved into judicial proceedings or to adjudicate challenges.
  • Local and state government budgets (forfeiture revenues and administrative costs).

Procedural / timeline aspects

  • Introduced: March 13, 2025 (per filing metadata).
  • Status: Died in Committee (so the bill did not advance into law during the 2025 session).
  • Because the bill did not pass, the reenacted provisions did not take effect and existing law remained unchanged.

Potential policy implications

  • Restoring administrative forfeiture could speed asset disposition for authorities and increase recovered assets, but may raise due-process and property-rights concerns if contest rights or notice procedures are limited.
  • Modifying notice or contest procedures (shorter deadlines, more limited hearing rights) can reduce litigation costs for the state but increase the risk of inadvertent property loss for innocent owners.
  • Fiscal impact depends on whether forfeiture revenues are retained by law enforcement agencies or remitted to state funds, and on administrative costs to implement new procedures.

If you want a precise, clause-level summary, please provide the bill text (or the jurisdiction and full bill file). I can then produce a detailed section-by-section analysis and identify exact statutory changes and fiscal impacts.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.