Video & Transcript : 'bond forfeiture' :

Page 8 of 354
AL

Alabama 2025 Regular Session

Alabama Senate Judiciary Committee Mar 19th, 2025

Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:
  • So a couple of... bonds that you may require for forfeiture; they'll tell you that it will put us out
  • Okay, here's your percentage bond if you give... Here's your percentage bond.
  • the bail bonds.
  • And I've yet to ever see a forfeiture in a bail bond. I've been practicing for 30 something years.
  • We actually get the money; we don't want to have a forfeiture against one of our bail bonds people because
Bills: SB210 , SB225 , HB280 , HB287 , HB94 , HB88 , SB157 , HB7 , HB8 , HB42
Committee: Senate Judiciary
TX
Transcript Highlights:
  • For years, some counties have begun imposing a cash bond requirement as a condition of approval for the
  • HB206 prohibits counties from requiring a cash bond as a condition of approval for the construction of
  • As written, pipeline companies that prefer to use a cash bond would still have that option to make that
  • bond.
  • We either fix them as we go, or we put up a bond.
Bills: HB206 , HB1238 , HB2890 , HB2970
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Capital Investment Committee 4/3/25

Capital Investment

Transcript Highlights:
  • And we're sitting at just over $3.6 million worth of bonding power for the city bonding leverage.
  • You know, we can't really use bonding dollars for remediation.
  • And today the bonding request is for Proctor.
  • ><c> develop</c><00:48:44.640><c> plans</c> This bonding request will develop plans This bonding request
  • Representative Schumacher, for Ruthton. bond proceeds that will allow our bond proceeds that will allow
WA

Washington 2025-2026 Regular Session

Senate Transportation Feb 24th, 2026 at 04:00 pm

Transportation

OK

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

Senate Legislative Session Mar 26th, 2026 at 12:10 pm

Oklahoma Senate Floor Meeting

OK

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

Senate Legislative Session Mar 26th, 2026 at 08:30 am

Oklahoma Senate Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • And so, we're not talking about surety bonds, right? These are professional bonds. Is that correct?
  • And can the author explain the difference between surety bonds and professional bonds?
  • Curious, do all 77 counties have the same process when it comes to setting bond?
  • As far as setting bond, yes, but they may have different people doing it.
  • statutory bond, then he will go before a judge on that appeal.
OK

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

Senate Legislative Session Mar 26th, 2026

Oklahoma Senate Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • and this may be too deep in the weeds, but I can't help but say it will impact the ability to get bonds
  • Those bonds are based on growth revenue.
  • I think we're going to create a real problem for local government bonding and for our schools being able
  • to bond with this change.
  • year and receive their excise reports and see valuations are now slowing, where they were basing a bond
Summary: The Senate first considered Senate Bill 1623, a measure updating the state charter for state-regulated credit unions to make them more competitive with federal credit unions. Two amendments were adopted: one changing certain board authority language from “shall” to “may,” and another restoring the title. Supporters said the bill was the product of years of negotiation with bankers and credit unions and would not affect national banks; after questions about membership expansion and census-tract service areas, the bill passed 44-0. The chamber then took up Senate Joint Resolution 39, which would send to voters a constitutional amendment lowering annual caps on assessed-value growth for homestead and agricultural property from 3% to 1%, and for other property from 5% to 3%. Proponents argued it would slow property-tax growth, help seniors and fixed-income homeowners stay in their homes, and not reduce government revenue but only slow future growth; opponents warned it would reduce local revenue growth for schools, counties, infrastructure, and bonding capacity, and would disproportionately benefit higher-value property owners. The resolution passed 38-8, and the special-election referral also passed 38-8. Senate Joint Resolution 47, which would place current voter ID requirements into the Constitution, also advanced and passed 39-8, with the special-election provision passing by the same margin. Supporters said it simply constitutionalized existing law requiring proof of identity and would preserve election security; critics said Oklahoma already has voter ID rules, the measure was unnecessary, and the language could create uncertainty for absentee voters and future changes. Debate also touched on provisional ballots, military and overseas voting, and whether the measure would make future adjustments harder. Later, Senate Bill 2084 passed 35-7 and as an emergency measure. The bill limits wrongful-termination settlements for faculty members at higher education institutions to two times annual salary, including pay and accrued benefits. Supporters said it would provide certainty for universities and regents; questions focused on tenure, free-speech claims, and how the cap would interact with existing tort limits. The Senate also passed Senate Bill 1655 unanimously to allow Oklahoma Complete Health’s Children’s Specialty Program to contact adoptive parents and offer continued voluntary services for post-adoption children, and Senate Bill 1679 was introduced as the “Preserving Oklahoma Values Act,” aimed at codifying adherence to the U.S. and Oklahoma Constitutions and rejecting foreign law, with debate beginning over its enforcement and scope.
ID

Idaho 2026 Regular Session

Agenda Feb 2nd, 2026

State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:
  • This is how forfeitures are currently being recorded.
  • bond forfeitures, but those are all under different parts of code.
  • So this would be for civil asset forfeiture and criminal forfeitures. Any further questions?
  • bond forfeitures, but those are all under different parts of code.
  • So this would be for civil asset forfeiture and criminal forfeitures. Any further questions?
Committee: House State Affairs
Summary: The committee first considered RS 3312, a proposal from Representative Scott aimed at limiting the use of slogans, logos, or similar branding on state budget materials when those messages could be used for political promotion. Members raised drafting questions and concerns that the language was confusing and could unintentionally affect official documents and correspondence. On motion, the committee voted to return the RS to the sponsor for reworking. The committee then took up RS 3314, which would improve transparency in Idaho’s civil asset forfeiture system by requiring local reports to also be sent to the state controller for storage and publication. Scott said the bill would centralize data, not change forfeiture procedures, and suggested changing the reporting deadline from February to April to match existing local reporting timelines. Members asked about the types of property covered and the fiscal impact, and the committee approved the RS with the date change. Next, the committee considered RS 33141, another transparency measure that would add a penalty for state agencies that knowingly or recklessly fail to report executed MOUs, MOAs, contracts, and related agreements to the state controller. Scott described the bill as a response to agencies that were not complying with existing reporting law and said enforcement would likely come through legislative and appropriations action. Members raised concerns about ambiguity, possible liability, and whether the penalty should be tied more clearly to notice and cure provisions. The committee voted to return the RS to the sponsor for further work. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 504, which would address lottery syndicates by limiting bulk lottery ticket purchases and allowing the Lottery Commission to deny winnings tied to prohibited bulk-buy activity. Supporters said the bill was intended to stop organized groups, often from out of state, from buying large numbers of tickets and taking winnings out of Idaho. Questions focused on enforcement, the $5,000 purchase limit, and whether the rule would affect ordinary groups or in-state entities. After testimony, the committee voted to send HB 504 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

JDC Public Hearing 02-06-2026

Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:
  • We appreciate the recent changes to the forfeiture law, but our position very clearly is that forfeiture
  • We appreciate the recent changes to the forfeiture law, but our position very clearly is that forfeiture
  • So we have several concerns, as we've had with the civil forfeiture issue.
  • The Romans had a similar property forfeiture regime.
  • >> Well, at that point, then the forfeiture action defaults.
Committee: Senate Judiciary
Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on several bills. SB 2444 would raise the real property exemption amount for attachment or execution, which the Attorney General said could create vague retroactivity language and litigation risk; the committee noted the exemption had last been adjusted around 1978. SB 2446 would add a seventh associate judge to the Intermediate Court of Appeals. Judiciary staff testified in opposition, saying recent internal restructuring and a pending vacancy had improved output and that it would be prudent to wait and see the effect before adding another judge. The Public Defender supported the goal of faster appellate resolution but said it would defer to the court’s assessment and had no objection to revisiting the issue later. The committee also discussed current appellate timelines, with staff saying at least 225 days is built into the process before a case reaches a merit panel, and that a two-year delay from panel assignment was realistic under the current structure. The committee then heard SB 2450, which would establish a presidential preference primary for the 2028 cycle. The Chief Election Officer said the election would cost about $4 million, less if combined with the regular primary. Several opponents argued the bill would add bureaucracy, duplicate or undermine party-run processes, and waste taxpayer money; one speaker estimated the total cost could be closer to $6 million when county costs are included. Supporters and committee members discussed that the measure would not require parties to use the results and that Hawaii remains one of the few states still using caucuses. The committee also asked whether counties could staff the election and whether the results would be useful given Hawaii’s current primary timing. SB 2453 would require the Office of Elections to include a notice with each ballot that a digital and printed voter information guide is available, with the notice in 32-point font as a separate insert. The Chief Election Officer said the insert would cost about $90,000 and asked for an effective date of January 1, 2027 because mailing preparations for the primary would already be underway. The Disability and Communications Access Board, League of Women Voters, National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii, and others supported the bill. The committee also began hearing SB 2461, which would have the Office of Elections prepare a questionnaire for candidates and publish responses online and in the voter guide; the Chief Election Officer said the office did not think it should be the agency to shape campaign questions, though he said it could work if the questions were specified in statute. Finally, the committee heard SB 2457, which would require a criminal conviction before seized property could be forfeited. The Attorney General and Honolulu Police Department opposed the bill, arguing it would prolong cases, increase storage costs, and make forfeiture less effective against crime, especially where owners flee, die, or hide assets through shell companies. The Public Defender strongly supported the measure, saying forfeiture should be tied to convictions and that people challenging forfeiture often lack counsel. The Honolulu Prosecutor also opposed the bill, but said it supported transparency, due process, and even a right to counsel; it argued conviction-only forfeiture would fail in cases involving fugitives, deceased suspects, or hidden ownership structures. The committee questioned what would happen to property if an owner could not be found, and the prosecutor said the outcome would depend on the type of property and could involve abandonment or interpleader proceedings.