HB3406 amends Section 36-1 of the Criminal Code of 2012 to add fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer to the list of offenses that can trigger forfeiture of a vessel, watercraft, vehicle, or aircraft when the property is used with the owner’s knowledge and consent. The bill places this offense alongside a long list of existing forfeiture-triggering crimes, including serious violent offenses, certain drug and weapons offenses, DUI-related offenses, cigarette tax violations, and environmental offenses.
In practical terms, the bill would expand Illinois civil forfeiture law so that a vehicle or other conveyance used in a police chase could be seized and forfeited under the same procedures already used for other enumerated offenses. The bill does not create a new criminal offense; instead, it increases the property consequences attached to an existing offense in the Illinois Vehicle Code. It also leaves intact existing provisions that allow forfeiture in other circumstances, including aggravated fleeing and eluding and other vehicle-related violations.
Impact
The bill would directly amend 720 ILCS 5/36-1, broadening the scope of property subject to forfeiture under Illinois criminal law. By adding Section 11-204 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer) to the forfeiture list, it would authorize seizure and forfeiture of vehicles, watercraft, aircraft, and similar property used in that offense with the owner’s knowledge and consent. The bill would therefore affect vehicle owners, drivers, law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts handling forfeiture proceedings, while leaving the underlying criminal penalties for fleeing and eluding unchanged.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of committee testimony or recorded votes, the available record suggests a law-and-order approach focused on strengthening enforcement tools against police chases. The bill’s sponsor appears to be seeking a tougher deterrent by tying the offense to property forfeiture. Because there are no transcripts or vote results provided, there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials, but the measure’s structure indicates likely support from proponents of stronger traffic-enforcement and public-safety penalties.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be the expansion of civil forfeiture authority, especially because the bill applies only when the owner had knowledge and consent, which may still raise concerns about proportionality and the risk of punishing property owners beyond the underlying offense. Critics of forfeiture laws may question whether seizure of a vehicle is an appropriate penalty for fleeing and eluding, while supporters would likely argue that the measure is necessary to deter dangerous chases and protect officers and the public. No specific opposing arguments or named stakeholders are provided in the available legislative history.
Requires the State Highway Patrol to receive a specific appropriation from the General Assembly for any single vehicle purchase in excess of $500,000, rather than $100,000