California 2015-2016 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 443 — Forfeiture.

Last action — In committee: Held under submission.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2015-2016 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law subjects property acquired through or as proceeds of criminal profiteering activity to forfeiture. Existing law defines criminal profiteering activity as any specified acts or threats made for financial gain or advantage. Existing law requires a prosecuting agency to file a petition of forfeiture in conjunction with the criminal proceeding for the underlying offense. This bill would allow the prosecuting agency to file a petition of forfeiture prior to the commencement of the underlying criminal proceeding if the value of the assets seized exceeds $100,000, there is a substantial probability that the prosecuting agency will file a criminal complaint, there is a substantial probability the prosecuting agency will prevail on the issue of forfeiture and failure to enter the order will result in the property being destroyed or otherwise removed from the jurisdiction of the court, the need to preserve the property outweighs the hardship on any party against whom the order is entered, and there is a substantial probability that the assets subject to forfeiture represent direct or indirect proceeds of criminal activity committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a transnational criminal organization, as defined. The bill would allow a person claiming an interest in the property or proceeds to move for return of the property on the grounds there is not probable cause to believe that the property is subject to forfeiture, and if the prosecuting agency does not establish substantial probability that the property is subject to forfeiture the court would be required to order the seized property returned. The bill would require the Attorney General, on or before January 1, 2018, to report to the Governor and specified committees on the use of these proceedings. The bill would provide for the repeal of these changes on January 1, 2019.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. In committee: Held under submission.

  2. In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  3. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  4. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (July 14).

  5. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  6. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  7. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 71. Noes 5. Page 1628.)

  8. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  9. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (May 20).

  10. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  11. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  12. Read second time and amended.

  13. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.) (April 28).

  14. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  15. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended.

  16. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  17. In committee: Set, second hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  18. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  19. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  20. From printer. May be heard in committee March 26.

  21. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Alejo · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 2 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Alejo

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Yea
Hill — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Beall — Yea
Lara — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Nielsen — Yea

Official roll call →

AB 443 ALEJO Assembly Third Reading

Passed 71 Yea · 5 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 62503
Democratic 4000
Republican 5001
Total 71504
% of votes cast 89%6%0%5%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Yea
Baker — Yea
Bloom — Not Voting
Brough — Not Voting
Brown — Yea
Harper — Nay
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Levine — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Weber — Nay
Eggman — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Daly — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Burke — Yea
Salas — Yea
Campos — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Holden — Yea
Gray — Yea
Kim — Yea
Lopez — Yea
Linder — Yea
Low — Yea
Mayes — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Chang — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Medina — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Chau — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Chu — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Mullin — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Perea — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Steinorth — Yea
Ting — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Williams — Yea
Wood — Yea
Gonzalez — Not Voting
Gordon — Yea
Hadley — Nay
Beth Gaines — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Mark Stone — Nay
Roger Hernández — Yea
Travis Allen — Nay
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Not Voting
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 14 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11002
Democratic 2000
Republican 1001
Total 14003
% of votes cast 82%0%0%18%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Wood — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Chang — Yea
Holden — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Daly — Not Voting
Rendon — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Weber — Not Voting
Gomez — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 443 do?
Existing law subjects property acquired through or as proceeds of criminal profiteering activity to forfeiture. Existing law defines criminal profiteering activity as any specified acts or threats made for financial gain or advantage. Existing law requires a prosecuting agency to file a petition of forfeiture in conjunction with the criminal proceeding for the underlying offense. This bill would allow the prosecuting agency to file a petition of forfeiture prior to the commencement of the underlying criminal proceeding if the value of the assets seized exceeds $100,000, there is a substantial probability that the prosecuting agency will file a criminal complaint, there is a substantial probability the prosecuting agency will prevail on the issue of forfeiture and failure to enter the order will result in the property being destroyed or otherwise removed from the jurisdiction of the court, the need to preserve the property outweighs the hardship on any party against whom the order is entered, and there is a substantial probability that the assets subject to forfeiture represent direct or indirect proceeds of criminal activity committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a transnational criminal organization, as defined. The bill would allow a person claiming an interest in the property or proceeds to move for return of the property on the grounds there is not probable cause to believe that the property is subject to forfeiture, and if the prosecuting agency does not establish substantial probability that the property is subject to forfeiture the court would be required to order the seized property returned. The bill would require the Attorney General, on or before January 1, 2018, to report to the Governor and specified committees on the use of these proceedings. The bill would provide for the repeal of these changes on January 1, 2019.
Who sponsors AB 443?
AB 443 is sponsored by Alejo.
What is the current status of AB 443?
This bill died with 2015-2016 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 443?
Track AB 443 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 443

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 443

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →