HBA-MPM S.B. 563 77(R) BILL ANALYSIS Office of House Bill AnalysisS.B. 563 By: Armbrister Criminal Jurisprudence 5/4/2001 Engrossed BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Currently, the best interest of innocent property owners in a criminal asset forfeiture proceeding may not be protected in cases in which the seized property was either obtained from the innocent property owner by criminal means or was acquired with proceeds from property obtained by criminal means. Senate Bill 563 provides that the property of an owner or interest holder may not be forfeited if the owner or interest holder proves that the property was stolen from the owner or interest holder, purchased with money stolen from the owner or interest holder or with proceeds from the sale of the stolen property, or used without the permission of the owner or interest holder. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the opinion of the Office of House Bill Analysis that this bill does not expressly delegate any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution. ANALYSIS Senate Bill 563 amends the Code of Criminal Procedure to provide that an owner or interest holder's interest in property may not be forfeited if at the forfeiture hearing the owner or interest holder proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the owner or interest holder was not a party to the offense giving rise to the forfeiture and that the contraband: _was stolen from the owner or interest holder before being used in the commission of the offense; _was purchased with money stolen from the owner or interest holder or with proceeds from the sale of property stolen from the owner or interest holder; or _was used or intended to be used without the effective consent of the owner or interest holder in the commission of the offense. An attorney representing the state who has a reasonable belief that the property subject to forfeiture meets the above description and who has a reasonable belief as to the identity of the rightful owner or interest holder of the property is required to notify the owner or interest holder. However, the attorney is not liable in an action for damages resulting from an act or omission in the attorney's performance of duties imposed by the required notification. The bill provides that the exclusive remedy for failure by the attorney to provide the notice is submission of that failure as a ground for new trial in a motion for new trial or bill of review. EFFECTIVE DATE September 1, 2001.