513.607. Property subject to forfeiture--procedure--report required, when, contents--annual state auditor's report, contents--violations, penalty. - Missouri Statutes

Property subject to forfeiture--procedure--report required, when,contents--annual state auditor's report, contents--violations,penalty.

513.607. 1. All property of every kind, including cash or othernegotiable instruments, used or intended for use in the course of, derivedfrom, or realized through criminal activity is subject to civil forfeiture.Civil forfeiture shall be had by a civil procedure known as a CAFA forfeitureproceeding.

2. A CAFA forfeiture proceeding shall be governed by the Missouri rulesof court, rules of civil procedure, except to the extent that special rules ofprocedure are stated herein.

3. Any property seized by a law enforcement officer or agent shall notbe disposed of pursuant to section 542.301, RSMo, or by the uniformdisposition of unclaimed property act, sections 447.500 through 447.595, RSMo,unless the CAFA proceeding involving the seized property does not result in ajudgment of forfeiture.

4. In cases where the property is abandoned or unclaimed, an in rem CAFAforfeiture proceeding may be instituted by petition by the prosecutingattorney of the county in which the property is located or seized by theattorney general's office. The proceeding may be commenced before or afterseizure of the property.

5. In lieu of, or in addition to, an in rem proceeding under subsection4 of this section, the prosecuting attorney or attorney general may bring anin personam action for the forfeiture of property, which may be commenced bypetition before or after the seizure of property.

6. (1) If the petition is filed before seizure, it shall state whatproperty is sought to be forfeited, that the property is within thejurisdiction of the court, the grounds for forfeiture, and the names of allpersons known to have or claim an interest in the property. The court shalldetermine ex parte whether there is reasonable cause to believe that theproperty is subject to forfeiture and that notice to those persons having orclaiming an interest in the property prior to seizure would cause the loss ordestruction of the property. If the court finds that reasonable cause doesnot exist to believe the property is subject to forfeiture, it shall dismissthe proceeding. If the court finds that reasonable cause does exist tobelieve the property is subject to forfeiture but there is not reasonablecause to believe that prior notice would result in loss or destruction, itshall order service on all persons known to have or claim an interest in theproperty prior to a further hearing on whether a writ of seizure should issue. If the court finds that there is reasonable cause to believe that theproperty is subject to forfeiture and to believe that prior notice would causeloss or destruction, it shall without any further hearing or notice issue awrit of seizure directing the sheriff of the county or other authorized lawenforcement agency where the property is found to seize it.

(2) Seizure may be effected by a law enforcement officer authorized toenforce the criminal laws of this state prior to the filing of the petitionand without a writ of seizure if the seizure is incident to a lawful arrest,search, or inspection and the officer has probable cause to believe theproperty is subject to forfeiture and will be lost or destroyed if not seized. Within four days of the date of seizure, such seizure shall be reported bysaid officer to the prosecuting attorney of the county in which the seizure iseffected or the attorney general; and if in the opinion of the prosecutingattorney or attorney general forfeiture is warranted, the prosecuting attorneyor attorney general shall, within ten days after receiving notice of seizure,file a petition for forfeiture. The petition shall state, in addition to theinformation required in subdivision (1) of this subsection, the date and placeof seizure. The burden of proof will be on the investigative agency to proveall allegations contained in the petition.

7. After the petition is filed or the seizure effected, whichever islater, every person known to have or claim an interest in the property shallbe served, if not previously served, with a copy of the petition and a noticeof seizure in the manner provided by the Missouri rules of court and rules ofcivil procedure. Service by publication may be ordered upon any party whosewhereabouts cannot be determined or if there be unknown parties.

8. The prosecuting attorney or attorney general to whom the seizure isreported shall report annually by January thirty-first for the previouscalendar year all seizures. Such report shall include the date, time, andplace of seizure, the property seized, the estimated value of the propertyseized, the person or persons from whom the property was seized, the criminalcharges filed, and the disposition of the seizure, forfeiture and criminalactions. The report shall be made to the director of the Missouri departmentof public safety and shall be considered an open record. The prosecutingattorney or attorney general shall submit a copy of the report to the stateauditor at the time the report is made to the director of the department ofpublic safety.

9. The state auditor shall make an annual report compiling the datareceived from law enforcement, prosecuting attorneys and the attorney general,and shall submit the report regarding seizures for the previous calendar yearto the general assembly annually by February twenty-eighth.

10. Intentional or knowing failure to comply with any reportingrequirement contained in this section shall be a class A misdemeanor,punishable by a fine of up to one thousand dollars.

(L. 1986 S.B. 450 § 6, A.L. 1993 S.B. 180, A.L. 2001 S.B. 5 & 21)

(1990) Forfeiture provisions of the drug statutes are manifestly penal laws in the sense of art. IX, sec. 7, Mo. const. and the proceeds are available for school purposes only, rather than to law enforcement agency. Reorganized School District No. 7 Lafayette County v. Douthit, 799 S.W.2d 591 (Mo.banc).

(2000) Seizure occurred when city police stopped and arrested claimant for traffic violations and took possession of money found in car; divestment of claimant's possessory interests occurred at that point and not when money was transferred to federal agents. Also, transfer was improper without first obtaining approval from circuit judge and prosecutor. Karpierz v. Easley, 31 S.W.3d 505 (Mo.App.W.D.).