WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1024

Forfeiture of Assets - As introduced, increases the burden of proof required to be met by the state in civil asset forfeiture proceedings from a preponderance of evidence standard to a clear and convincing evidence standard. - Amends TCA Title 40, Chapter 33.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Lowell Russell

Tennessee bill raises civil asset forfeiture evidentiary standard from preponderance to clear and convincing evidence, increasing state burden to seize property without criminal conviction.

Taken off notice for cal in s/c Criminal Justice Subcommittee of Judiciary Committee
#forfeitureofassets
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1024

Legislative bill overview

HB 1024 increases the evidentiary standard required for civil asset forfeiture in Tennessee from "preponderance of the evidence" (more likely than not) to "clear and convincing evidence" (substantially more likely than not). This means the state must meet a higher burden of proof to seize and keep property suspected of being connected to criminal activity without first obtaining a criminal conviction.

Why is this important

Civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to seize property based on civil proceedings rather than criminal conviction, sometimes without charging owners with crimes. Raising the evidentiary threshold makes it harder for the state to permanently keep seized assets, potentially protecting property owners from losing possessions in disputed cases. Conversely, this may limit law enforcement's ability to target criminal enterprises by seizing proceeds and assets.

Potential points of contention

  • Law enforcement concerns: Police and prosecutors may argue the higher standard significantly hampers their ability to disrupt criminal operations and remove profits from drug trafficking, organized crime, and other offenses.
  • Protections for innocent owners: Civil liberties advocates contend the current standard allows forfeiture of property from people never convicted or even charged with crimes, making this change a basic due process protection.
  • Implementation complexity: Courts and prosecutors may need clarification on how "clear and convincing evidence" applies to various forfeiture scenarios, potentially creating litigation over evidentiary sufficiency.

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

Sign in to ask a question.