RELATING TO FOOD AND DRUGS -- UNIFORM CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT --, POWERS OF ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL -- CIVIL FORFEITURE PROCEDURE
H7289 amends Rhode Island’s Uniform Controlled Substances Act to sharply limit civil asset forfeiture in drug-related cases. Under the bill, property connected to controlled substance offenses would generally no longer be subject to civil forfeiture; instead, forfeiture would proceed through criminal forfeiture, and in many circumstances a criminal conviction would be required before property could be forfeited. The bill preserves existing exceptions for certain conveyances and owners, including common carriers, property taken while unlawfully possessed by someone other than the owner, and property claimed by an owner who lacked knowledge or consent, unless a criminal conviction has been obtained.
The measure also retains and reorganizes detailed procedures for seizure, notice, administrative forfeiture for lower-value personal property, judicial in rem proceedings for higher-value property, and special handling for real property. It sets timelines for the attorney general and seizing agencies, requires notice to interested parties, establishes claim and bond procedures, and allocates the burden of proof so the state must first show probable cause before a claimant must prove the property was not forfeitable. The bill takes effect upon passage.
The bill would significantly change Rhode Island forfeiture law in controlled-substance cases by replacing or limiting civil forfeiture with criminal forfeiture and conditioning forfeiture on a criminal conviction in most situations. It would affect the powers of law enforcement agencies, the attorney general, property owners, and third parties with interests in seized property, while leaving in place procedural rules for seizure, notice, hearings, appeals, and disposition of forfeited property. It would amend § 21-28-5.04.2 of the General Laws and would apply immediately upon enactment.
The bill’s stated purpose and caption indicate a reform-oriented approach aimed at restricting civil asset forfeiture in drug cases, which generally suggests support for stronger property-rights protections and greater due process. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented debate or recorded sentiment from hearings or floor action in the materials supplied. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be framed as a civil-liberties and criminal-justice reform measure rather than a punitive enforcement expansion.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s requirement that forfeiture generally await a criminal conviction, which would limit law enforcement’s ability to seize and retain property through civil proceedings alone. Supporters would likely emphasize due process, protection of innocent owners, and reducing the risk of forfeiture without conviction, while opponents may argue that the change could hinder investigations, reduce leverage against drug trafficking, and make it harder to recover property tied to criminal activity. The bill also preserves exceptions and procedural mechanisms, so disputes may focus on how broadly those exceptions apply and whether the remaining administrative forfeiture process is sufficiently protective.