On Monday, February 22, at 10:00 am the SD House Judiciary committee will take on 5 bills. This is compiled using the agenda at the time of composing this post. Agendas can and do change!
One way to listen to these meetings live is via the audio links on the Schedule page of the LRC website. While there you can also view the status board for the meetings as they are going on.
*** Wednesday is crossover day. That means this is the last day this committee has to get any House bills out to the floor!
HB 1139 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Clarify the insurer responsible for work done within a railroad crossing.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Undecided
Prime Sponsors: Rep Mark Mickelson (R, Dist 13) and Sen Larry Tidemann (R, Dist 7) are the prime sponsors.
Testimony will have to be listened to. Insurance is just not in my knowledge/interest area.
HB 1225 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Provide for the forfeiture and disposition of certain property utilized in acts of terrorism.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Undecided
Prime Sponsors: Rep Scott Craig (R, Dist 33) and Sen Bruce Rampelberg (R, Dist 30) are the prime sponsors.
This is a full act. I have two big questions. First, how bit of an issue has acts of terrorism been in SD? Second, do we really need more asset forfeiture going on in SD? There isn’t accountability for what is already taken.
HB 1134 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Provide for access to certain property for the purpose of making surveys.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Undecided
Prime Sponsors: Rep Timothy Johns (R, Dist 31) and Sen Jim Peterson (D, Dist 4) are the prime sponsors.
Here is the whole bill:
Section 1. That chapter 21-35 be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:In a case when land is required for public use, the person in charge of the public use may survey and locate the land. However, the land must be located in the manner that is compatible with the greatest public benefit and the least private injury and subject to court order made pursuant to this chapter. Whoever is in charge of the public use may enter upon the land and make examinations, surveys, and maps. Entry pursuant to this section does not constitute a claim of relief in favor of the owner of the land except for an injury resulting from negligence, wantonness, or malice.
Is this because certain land owners didn’t want pipelines to be surveyed on their land? I believe there was a court case about this last year, I’ll have to research further when I have more time.
BILLS FOR POSSIBLE ACTION WHICH HAVE HAD PRIOR HEARING.
HB 1068 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Adopt the South Dakota Nonprofit Corporation Act.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Undecided
Prime Sponsors: Rep Mike Stevens (R, Dist 18) and Sen Arthur Rusch (R, Dist 17) are the prime sponsors.
This bill has had a few hearings. There was a hoghouse amendment expected dropped into the bill in the last hearing. That amendment was worked about between The State Bar and the Governor’s office for the changes. The bill went from being almost a couple hundred pages, to what looks like a couple dozen pages.
Here is what I said about the bill before:
This is a VERY long bill. A version of this bill was brought forth last year, HB 1078 (SoDakLiberty Posts). But the Act wasn’t quite ready for prime time and was tabled by the committee.
This bill was hoghoused last week. That hoghouse fixed a numbering issue with the bill as drafted.
There has been some testimony on the bill so far. It is also a bill I have been in communication with some lawyers about who work with non-profits. They are keenly interesting in this Act because it has some long-reaching implications that could be good for non-profits that want to move to South Dakota. I know of a few non-profits that would love to move to South Dakota, but cannot because the current laws governing non-profits are lacking.
I hope to blog more about this as I learn more about the act. In the meantime a good amount of information about the Act is available on the State Bar of South Dakota website.
HB 1088 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Revise and consolidate certain civil forfeiture provisions.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Undecided
Prime Sponsors: Rep Don Haggar (R, Dist 10) and Sen Corey Brown (R, Dist 23) are the prime sponsors.
This was amended during the last hearing. I haven’t had time to listen to that hearing yet, but the amendment made a lot of changes.
Here is what I said about this bill prior to its previous hearing:
Some of this is cleanup. It combines and reconciles two different forfeiture areas of law: drug related and sex traffic related.
A big change is to ensure there is a conviction for drug crime forfeiture. Sex traffic crimes already require a conviction.
A big policy change in the bill is to add due process before any property is seized. A conviction would be required. This would be a large step up from the current preponderance of evidence policy.
The Governors office spoke in favor of the bill. That is a good sign.
The AG’s Office, States Attorney Association, and South Dakota Sheriffs Association did speak against the bill. They oppose the conviction policy that has been added.
It should be noted that due process being added does not prevent property from being taken for evidence. I just means property cannot be taken permanently until there is a conviction.
There was an amendment proposed to do away with the conviction policy. The amendment was withdrawn because it was incomplete.
Action on the bill was deferred so a new amendment could possibly be considered.
Personally I want the bill passed with the conviction requirement. That would strengthen the protection for SD residents.
The post House Judiciary has 5 bills on Mon Feb 22, Terrorism and asset forfeiture appeared first on SoDakLiberty.
