In the last several weeks of the North Dakota legislative session, quite a bit happened.

Below, we have made call outs to important #NDLeg updates, with some you can act on today. Whether that means you make a phone call, write an email, or set up an appointment with your legislators, anything you can do matters and will make an impact.

Keeping an eye at the weeks ahead, we’re prepared to continue monitoring changes via our Bill Tracker and further hold elected officials accountable to make your voices heard at the Capital.

These are bills that have passed one chamber but are still in play in the second chamber:

• House Bill 1286 would substantially overhaul civil forfeiture, one of the greatest threats to private property rights in North Dakota.

HB 1286 has gone through several subcommittee meetings and ultimately was amended by the committee. The amended bill raises the standard of proof to clear and convincing evidence in forfeiture proceedings and retains the conviction requirement, which was a major point of contention among the interested parties and the committee. Additionally, the amended bill directs funds obtained through civil asset forfeiture into the attorney general assets forfeiture fund.

HB 1286 passed in the House and was referred to Senate Judiciary Committee. The ACLU supports HB 1286.

• Senate Bill 2044  would increase the legal penalties for tampering with or damaging a critical infrastructure facility or public service. The bill would criminalize activity far beyond the intentional causing of property damage, extending penalties to activity such as “interfering with” or “inhibiting” the operations of critical infrastructure.
  
  The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee amended the conspirator portion of the bill. If an organization has pled guilty or is convicted of conspiring with someone who has pled guilty or been convicted of damaging a critical infrastructure facility, the organization must be assessed a fine equivalent to the penalty for each individual, not to exceed $100,000. 

SB 2044 passed in the Senate. The House Energy and Natural Resources Committee advanced the bill to the House floor earlier this week. The ACLU opposes SB 2044.

• Senate Bill 2209 would bar disclosure of records on security plans for public or private entities, including “critical infrastructure,” such as fossil fuel pipeline companies.

SB 2209 passed the Senate and referred to the House Industry, Business and Labor Committee where a hearing took place on last week, but no action has been taken yet. The ACLU opposes SB 2209.

These are bills that we supported but have since been killed:

• House 1231 said that law enforcement may not authorize the use of unmanned aerial vehicles armed with any “lethal, less lethal, or nonlethal” weapons. This bill failed in the House.
   
• House Bill 1442 would have outlawed DUI checkpoints and required police to have “reasonable suspicion” to stop a driver. The bill passed out of the House but was killed in the Senate Judiciary committee.
   
• Senate Bill 2159 would have provided a $1.5 million appropriation to the attorney general to award grants to organizations involved in providing prevention and treatment services to human trafficking victims. SB 2159 passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but failed in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

North Dakotans must continue to act and defend the rights and well-being of everyone in the state. Whether writing a letter, making a phone call, or setting up a meeting, every voice can make the difference.

Follow us on Facebook for continued legislative information and alerts or email us at northdakota@aclu.org with any questions.

Police abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws has shaken our nation’s conscience.

Civil forfeiture allows police to seize — and then keep or sell — any property they allege is involved in a crime.

Owners need not ever be arrested or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government.

Forfeiture was originally presented as a way to cripple large-scale criminal enterprises by diverting their resources. But today, aided by deeply flawed state laws, many police departments, including those in North Dakota, use forfeiture to benefit their bottom lines, making seizures motivated by profit rather than crime-fighting.

For people whose property has been seized through civil asset forfeiture, legally regaining such property is notoriously difficult and expensive, with costs sometimes exceeding the value of the property.

That’s why the ACLU of North Dakota supports House Bill 1286, legislation that would substantially overhaul civil forfeiture in the state. Last month, North Dakota’s House approved House Bill 1286. It now heads to the Senate.

Law enforcement’s retention of forfeiture proceeds violates two key constitutional principles: due process and separation of powers. Giving law enforcement a direct financial stake in seizures violates the basic due process requirement of impartiality in the administration of justice – a bedrock principle of the American legal system. Allowing state and local law enforcement to directly benefit from forfeiture proceeds dangerously shifts law enforcement priorities from fairly and impartially administering justice to generating revenue. Additionally, the U.S. Supreme court recently issued a unanimous opinion that the Eighth Amendment on excessive fines applies to states’ forfeitures under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.

By passing House Bill 1286, the legislature can rectify serious flaws in state law and establish significant safeguards for innocent North Dakotans.

This bill is not perfect. Instead of depositing all civil forfeiture proceeds into the state school fund and  redirecting those funds away from law enforcement coffers, House Bill 1286 provides that most funds are put into the attorney general assets forfeiture fund, including vehicles, money, and personal property.  Seized funds deposited into the state school fund would be reserved to mostly fees and fines – a significantly smaller figure. Currently, after property has been forfeited, agencies can retain up to 100 percent of the proceeds. This creates a perverse incentive to pursue forfeiture cases, a practice widely criticized as “policing for profit.” According to the bill’s fiscal note, state law enforcement and regional task forces have generated an estimated $1.62 million in forfeiture funding.

Moreover, funding agencies outside the legislative process violate the separation of powers. State legislators are responsible for raising and appropriating funds. By retaining forfeiture proceeds, police departments and prosecutors’ offices — members of the executive branch — become self-financing agencies, unaccountable to members of the North Dakota legislature, and, by extension, to the public at large.

Second, House Bill 1286 would strengthen due process for property owners facing civil forfeiture. The bill would require a conviction in criminal court before property can be forfeited in civil court.  House Bill 1286 would raise the standard of proof from probable cause to clear and convincing evidence. In addition, the bill would create a new proportionality hearing that would allow owners to challenge “unconstitutionally excessive” forfeitures.

Finally, House Bill 1286 would implement the state’s first reporting requirements for civil forfeiture. This bill would require agencies to annually report the total number of seizures by value and property type, the underlying crimes that led to the seizure, and any additional information the attorney general may require. These disclosure requirements would play a vital role in keeping both the public and legislators well-informed about civil forfeiture in North Dakota.

By enacting these simple, commonsense but vitally needed changes in civil forfeiture law and procedures, House Bill 1286 would protect innocent property owners from being unjustly deprived of their property.