COLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE The Voice of Colorado?s Cities and Towns 1144 Sherman Street, Denver, CO 80203 0 303-831-6411 866-578-0936 - 303-860-8175 May 23, 2017 The Honorable John W. Hickenlooper Governor of Colorado 136 State Capitol Denver, CO 80203?1792 Dear Governor Hickenlooper: On behalf of the Colorado Municipal League?s 269 member municipalities, we respectfully request your veto of HB 17?1313, concerning civil asset forfeiture reform. The Colorado Municipal League opposes HB 17-1313 for four key reasons. One, it limits law enforcement from going after dangerous criminal enterprises such as human traf?cking, illegal drug and marijuana sales, and organized crime. Two, the bill establishes arbitrary thresholds based on unsubstantiated assumptions. Three, it creates an inappropriate role for the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) to collect ?nes from local governments. Finally, the League disagrees with the portrayal of HB 17?1313 as consensus legislation. While the proponents did invite the Colorado District Attorneys Council and the Of?ce of the Attorney General to a stakeholder process, entities such as the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, the County Sheriffs of Colorado, the League, and CCI were not. Civil asset forfeiture is an important tool for Colorado?s law enforcement agencies to shut down multi-jurisdictional criminal activity. Law enforcement must have this tool to quickly dismantle human traf?cking operations, illegal drug sales and marijuana grows, theft rings, and organized crime in Colorado. Next, HB 17-1313 was not drafted based upon any facts from Colorado. That was clear during testimony when the proponents outlined the need for this legislation with only examples from outside of the state. National organizations such as the Institute for Justice are pushing their own agendas. The legislation is built on the assumption that local law enforcement participates in the federal civil asset forfeiture process purely for ?nancial gain. Local law enforcement agencies do not work with the federal government on task forces and the like for ?nancial gain, but for the safety of Colorado?s citizens. While the proponents of HB 17?1 313 advocated throughout the process that the legislation is necessary to promote transparency in Colorado, the League encouraged the proponents to be transparent with Colorado?speci?c examples that would warrant legislation restricting Colorado law enforcement agencies. Third, HB 17-1313 requires that the aggregate net equity of the assets of a criminal enterprise must be at least $50,000 before a local law enforcement agency can retain any of the seized assets. The proponents testi?ed that most cases would be above the $50,000 threshold when, in Gov. John W. Hickenlooper May 23, 2017 Page 2 fact, that is not the case. Per law enforcement testimony, in many instances, more than 50% of assets seized and forfeited in Colorado will be adversely impacted by the new $50,000 threshold limit in the bill. Establishing an arbitrary threshold is not reform, but merely creating policy without taking into account the practical implications for law enforcement Last, HB 17?1313 requires that a local law enforcement agency must pay a fine if they are not compliant with the legislation?s reporting requirements. The fine may be anywhere from $500 to half of the proceeds a law enforcement receives in a forfeiture action. However, an inherent con?ict lies within this provision. Per C.R.S. 16-13?302, forfeiture funds could not be used to these ?nes due to strict statutory designations for their use. Equally important, this process would convert the Department of Local Affairs from an agency for local government assistance to a regulatory agency a role that should be reserved for agencies that regularly carry out these functions. In researching other law enforcement reporting requirements, Colorado Legislative Council reported that none of them had fines attached for potential non?compliance. These reports include: sex offender registration, police of?cer involved shootings, and school safety information. The League does not believe reporting on civil asset forfeiture should include the possibility of a ?ne when the above reports do not. CML believes that state statute should, at the very least, be consistent in this regard. Finally, HB 17?1313 was consistently described as ?consensus legislation,? which is not the case. This legislation was drafted without any input from the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, the County Sheriffs of Colorado, the Colorado Municipal League or Colorado Counties Inc. To the extent that any reform is necessary, those local officials directly responsible for public safety issues should be directly involved. Upon your veto of HB 17?1313, the Colorado Municipal League pledges to work with the proponents of HB 17-1313 in a meaningful stakeholder process that creates any needed reform based on fact and not assumption. Unfortunately, the legislation on your desk was not drafted in that way and will do harm to local law enforcements ability to stem the types of crime the forfeiture laws were established to eradicate. We respectfully request your veto of HB 17-1313 f. rfjw?saw ?a SamuelD Mamet Meghan Dollar Executive Director Legislative Policy Advocate Colorado Municipal League Colorado Municipal League cc. Kurtis T. Morrison, Office of Governor John Hickenlooper Doug Friednash, Office of Governor John Hickenlooper