TO: HOUSE JUDICIARY
RE: HB26-1250 PROCEDURES RELATED TO CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE
SPONSORS: DEGRAAF, BACON
FROM: JEANY RUSH, COLORADO CONSTITUENT
VOTE: YES Let’s do the Taking Responsibly! 4-21-26
FOLKS:
THIS IS THE REWRITTEN PORTION OF THE ZOOM TESTIMONY, THEN THE BILL SENT IN WRITTEN TESTIMONY: BILL PASSED IN A RARE MOMENT IN COLORADO!
Asset forfeitures shock at the partnership nearly had the big one!
The ten-year receipt average of the Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) activity is roughly 2,001 billion dollars per year. However, the deposit average for the past two years is 2.355 billion dollars per year. THE SMALL AMT FOR THE DEF FUND BELOW, PALES COMPARED TO THE BIGGER NUMBERS!
2026 · Since 2000, governments nationwide have forfeited at least $82 billion worth of property, with more than $57 billion collected by the federal …
Policing for Profit: $82 Billion Since 2000 – Facebook
“The Lord Giveth, and the Lord Taketh!”
In this case, it would seem that the State Taketh!
I like that this bill requires one or more criminal charges must be brought as a prerequisite to any “nuisance abatement or forfeiture proceedings.”
It is also good to have a forfeiture defense counsel fund, because there are too many people who could not afford to fund their own defense, and many times may be innocent, or victims of ill intentions.
Whether a car, a tool, a house, or other asset is seized for potential forfeiture, a Huge Responsibility comes with such an act. The damage to guilty and innocent alike can be great, and require a tremendous amount of understanding, assessment/valuation ability, procedural allocations, and basically this is a WHO DONE IT, AND WHO GETS IT SITUATION!
It should not be taken lightly when removing peoples’ property.
In a nation that has turned its back on the innocent, in favor of the guilty in our courts today, accountability is critical. We need to understand the information below to see why there needs to be transparency & accountability:
We need this bill, however, I have to question the SAFETY CLAUSE, BECAUSE AGAIN, IT IS THE VOTERS WHO WILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH THESE RULES.
——————————————–
TO: HOUSE JUDICIARY
RE: HB26-1250 PROCEDURES RELATED TO CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE
SPONSORS: DEGRAAF, BACON
FROM: JEANY RUSH, COLORADO CONSTITUENT
VOTE: YES Let’s do the Taking Responsibly!
FOLKS:
“The Lord Giveth, and the Lord Taketh!”
In this case, it would seem that the State Taketh!
I like that this bill requires one or more criminal charges must be brought as a prerequisite to any “nuisance abatement or forfeiture proceedings.”
It is also good to have a forfeiture defense counsel fund, because there are too many people who could not afford to fund their own defense, and many times may be innocent, or victims of ill intentions.
Whether a car, a tool, a house, or other asset is seized for potential forfeiture, a Huge Responsibility comes with such an act. The damage to guilty and innocent alike can be great, and require a tremendous amount of understanding, assessment/valuation ability, procedural allocations, and basically this is a WHO DONE IT, AND WHO GETS IT SITUATION!
It should not be taken lightly when removing peoples’ property.
In a nation that has turned its back on the innocent, in favor of the guilty in our courts today, accountability is critical. We need to understand the information below to see why there needs to be transparency & accountability:
“Public nuisance” means any fence, wall, shed, deck, house, garage, building, structure or any part of any of the aforesaid; or any tree, pole, or smokestack; or any excavation, hole, pit, basement, cellar, sidewalk subspace, dock, wharf or landing dock; or any lot, land, yard, premises or location which in its entirety, or in any part thereof, by reason of the condition in which the same is found or permitted to be or remain, shall or may endanger the health, safety, life, limb or property, or cause any hurt, harm, damage or injury to any one or more persons in the City, in any one or more of the following particulars”
- By reason of being a menace, threat or hazard to the general health and safety of the community.
- By reason of being a fire hazard.
- By reason of being unsafe for occupancy, or use on, in, upon, about or around the aforesaid property.
- By reason of lack of sufficient or adequate maintenance of the property, or being vacant, or the accumulation of junk or waste material of any kind or description, any of which depreciates the appraised value of the property in the immediate vicinity to such an extent that it is harmful to the community in which such property is situated or such condition exists.”(INTERNET NOTES
We need this bill, however, I have to question the SAFETY CLAUSE, BECAUSE AGAIN, IT IS THE VOTERS WHO WILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH THESE RULES.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 