House panel advances measure to limit civil asset forfeiture, add defense‑counsel fund and change proceeds distribution

The House Judiciary Committee on March 24 advanced House Bill 12‑50 as amended, a contested measure that tightens civil asset forfeiture procedures by generally requiring a criminal conviction before permanent forfeiture for owners who are not convicted, creating a state‑administered forfeiture defense counsel fund and changing how forfeiture proceeds are distributed.

Sponsors Rep. Veil Bacon and Rep. DeGraff described the bill as a limited, targeted reform meant to better align civil forfeiture with the criminal process. Key provisions adopted in sponsor amendments require courts to stay forfeiture proceedings while related criminal cases are pending in many circumstances; reinstate a standard requiring a conviction before pursuing forfeiture against a “non‑innocent owner”; create a forfeiture defense counsel fund administered by the State Court Administrator’s Office (SCAO) that would contract with nonprofit attorneys to provide means‑tested representation; and change the distribution of remaining proceeds after costs and restitution so that 50% would go to the seizing agency, 25% to behavioral‑health grants and 25% to the newly created defense counsel fund.

Supporters included the Institute for Justice and the ACLU of Colorado, who said civil forfeiture often operates against property, not persons, and that the expense and complexity of civil procedure leave many owners unaided — often producing default judgments when defendants do not respond. Witnesses cited a median cash forfeiture of roughly $2,400 and argued that hiring counsel commonly costs more than the property people try to recover.

Opponents — including Denver and other district attorneys, the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, county prosecutors and task‑force leaders — urged the committee to reject the measure or substantially alter it. Prosecutors said civil forfeiture is an established court‑supervised tool to disrupt organized criminal enterprises and that a mandatory defense‑counsel fund paid from proceeds could financially destabilize existing grant programs that support victim services and small community police efforts. Law‑enforcement witnesses repeatedly warned that redistributing or eliminating proceeds could undermine multi‑agency task forces and hamper investigations into large drug networks.

The Department of Local Affairs told the committee that a sponsor draft appropriation of $1,000,000 was not available in the LECS grant account; DOLA said the unencumbered balance was about $300,000 and that the proposed transfer would exhaust the LECS program and its administrative funding. Sponsors adjusted the fiscal language in amendments to remove a $1,000,000 direct transfer and narrowed the appropriation language.

The committee considered multiple sponsor amendments (L1, L2, L4, L5–L7, L10) to create the counsel fund, change ‘‘right to counsel’’ language to ‘‘access to counsel’’ (means‑tested for indigent litigants), define administrator RFP duties, and reinstate conviction requirements for non‑innocent‑owner proceedings. One hostile amendment that would have stripped standing from owners complicit in terrorism, human trafficking or large drug sales failed. After final debate, the committee voted 6–5 to refer HB 12‑50 as amended to the Finance Committee.

What happens next: HB 12‑50 is scheduled for Finance consideration; sponsors and stakeholders said they will continue technical talks about fund design and the draft language on fees and administrative responsibilities.

Representative comments (closing): Sponsors reiterated the bill’s narrower scope — preserving forfeiture when crimes are proven and focusing on equal access to counsel for people who otherwise default in civil forfeiture proceedings. Opponents warned of unintended operational impacts for law‑enforcement task forces and asked for alternative funding solutions for defense counsel instead of drawing down the LECS grant fund.

Representative vote: The Judiciary Committee voted 6–5 to refer HB 12‑50 as amended to the Finance Committee.

Representative quote: "If the government seeks to take a person's property, that person should have a fair chance to defend themselves," said Anaya Robinson of ACLU Colorado, a bill supporter.