This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.
This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.
Fiscal Note - SB 0948 - Allows forfeiture of motor vehicles of persons convicted of multiple intoxication-related traffic offenses
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. NO. 3967-01
BILL NO. SB 948
SUBJECT: Forfeitures of Vehicles
TYPE: Updated
DATE: March 10, 1998
#Updated to reflect additional information regarding forfeiture procedures.
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS Net Effect on All State Funds
FUND AFFECTED
FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001
#Total Estimated
$0
$0
$0
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS | |||
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| Total Estimated
Net Effect on All Federal Funds |
$0 | $0 | $0 |
|
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS | |||
| FUND AFFECTED | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 |
| Total Estimated Net Effect on Local Funds | $0 to Unknown | $0 to Unknown | $0 to Unknown |
Numbers within parentheses: ( ) indicate costs or losses
This fiscal note contains 5 pages.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
The Department of Transportation (DHT), Greene County Prosecutor, Boone County Prosecutor, Department of Public Safety-Division of Highway Safety, Missouri Highway Patrol (MHP) and Attorney General (AGO) do not expect any fiscal impact.
The Office of Prosecution Services (OPS) would not anticipate a direct fiscal impact. However, since the city or county attorney would be responsible for conducting the forfeiture proceedings, there could be an increase in workload, but the impact on any particular county would be unknown.
The City of St. Louis assumes that there would not be a significant fiscal impact as a result of this proposal. The city would not expect any fiscal impact in excess of $100,000. Additionally, there could be an increase in collections, but the amount would not be significant.
The Office of State Courts Administrator (CTS) assumes that the workload and budget of the judiciary would be impacted based of the number of additional case filings. The increase would not be significant.
The State Public Defender (SPD) assumes that it would need additional FTE (i.e., 5 assistant public defenders, 1.5 paralegal/investigator and 1 legal secretary) to handle the additional trials which would be anticipated as a result of this proposal. In FY97, the SPD provided representation in 4,844 driving while intoxicated cases. Assuming that only 5% would now want a trial instead of pleading out in order to protect their cars, the SPD would need additional staff. An additional 242 trials at a minimum of 40 hours each would result in an additional 9,688 attorney hours divided by 2,080 hours per year, or 4.65 attorneys.
#Oversight assumes that this proposal could have an indirect effect on the SPD by causing some cases to be more protracted. Forfeiture proceedings could be initiated in any case where the motor vehicle was operated by a person with one or more prior convictions for intoxicated related traffic offenses; who is prohibited from obtaining a license from the DOR; or who has a suspended or revoked license as a result of a guilty plea for an intoxicated traffic offense or involuntary manslaughter. If this proposal were enacted, it is assumed that persons would be more inclined to fight the charge and go to trial instead of plea bargaining to a lesser offense. Thus, these cases in which the SPD provides representation could become more protracted. However, since the forfeiture proceedings would be a civil matter, and the SPD does not provide representation in civil matters, the SPD would not be directly impacted by this proposal. The fiscal impact to the SPD has been shown as zero.
ASSUMPTION (continued)
The Department of Revenue (DOR) would be required to keep track of owners who have previously had any vehicles subject to forfeiture. The DOR assumes this requirement would be implemented with existing staff. If the workload is greater than anticipated, the DOR would address the situation through the budgetary process.
Given that the language of the proposal is permissive, Oversight has ranged income and costs from $0 to Unknown at the local level. It was also assumed that the net fiscal impact would be positive since the language provides that the owner or operator of the vehicle would be responsible for all costs associated with the seizure, towing, storage and impoundment of the vehicle as well as all court costs and reasonable attorney fees. In all likelihood, forfeiture proceedings would not be initiated at the local level if the outcome were not going to be positive.
#
ESTIMATED NET
EFFECT ON
FISCAL IMPACT -
State Government
FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001
(10 Mo.)
$0
$0
$0 FISCAL IMPACT -
Local Government
FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001
(10 Mo.)
LOCAL Income-City/County Collections from
Forfeiture
$0
$0
$0
to
to
to
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown Costs-City/County Attorney Conducting Forfeiture
Proceedings
$0
$0
$0
to
to
to
(Unknown)
(Unknown)
(Unknown) FISCAL IMPACT -
Local Government
FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001 (continued)
(10 Mo.)
$0
$0
$0 LOCAL FUNDS
to
to
to
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business
This proposal would not have a direct fiscal impact on small businesses.
DESCRIPTION
The proposal would allow any governing body of any city or county, in addition to the forfeiture proceedings of the Criminal Activity Forfeiture Act, to enact by ordinance, forfeiture procedures for any motor vehicle operated by a person with one or more prior convictions for intoxication related traffic offenses; who is prohibited from obtaining a license from the Department of Revenue (DOR); or who has a suspended or revoked license as the result of a guilty plea for an intoxicated traffic offense or involuntary manslaughter. The ordinance could also provide for impoundment and forfeiture of a motor vehicle if the person is classified as a prior or persistent offender; who has previously been convicted of two or more intoxicated related traffic offenses; or who has refused to take a chemical test. All forfeitures proceedings would be conducted in accordance with the Criminal Activity Forfeiture Act except by the city or county attorney.
Procedures would be established to provide for another individual claiming an ownership interest as well as not being the operator of the vehicle at the time. The non-operator or operator would be responsible for all costs associated with the seizure, towing, storage and impoundment along with court costs and reasonable attorney fees. The owner would be required to sign a written agreement with the city or county attorney to consent to seizure, impoundment and forfeiture of the vehicle if the vehicle is operated by the same operator again.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program, would not require additional capital improvements or rental space and would not impact total state revenue.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Department of Revenue
Attorney General
Office of State Courts Administrator
State Public Defender
SOURCES OF INFORMATION (continued)
Office of Prosecution Services
Department of Public Safety
Missouri Highway Patrol
Department of Transportation
St. Louis City
Boone County Prosecutor
Green County Prosecutor
NOT RESPONDING: St. Louis County, City of Springfield, Jackson County Executive, Kansas City Manager
Jeanne Jarrett, CPA
Director
March 10, 1998