ILNews

Governor vetoes forfeiture legislation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Gov. Mitch Daniels has vetoed Senate Enrolled Act 215, which designated what percentage of funds from forfeitures would go to prosecutors, law enforcement, and the Indiana Common School Fund.

In a statement Friday, Daniels said the legislation violates the Indiana Constitution, which states that the proceeds from “all forfeitures” shall go to the Common School Fund.

“The Indiana Supreme Court, on April 27, reinforced that point, possibly excepting the ‘limited diversion’ of the actual expenses of obtaining those proceeds.  Fairness to the General Assembly requires noting that legislators did not have the benefit of the court’s opinion, which was issued in the session’s final days,” he said.  

“This bill would take more than ninety cents of every dollar collected through forfeiture for the ‘expense of collection’ rather than sending it to the Common School Fund.  That is unwarranted as policy and constitutionally unacceptable in light of the Supreme Court’s recent guidance and the plain language of Article 8, Section 2 of the Indiana Constitution.”

State law currently allows law enforcement agencies to keep a portion of seized funds to cover "law enforcement costs" and give the rest to the Common School Fund to be used for school construction costs. But the amounts are left to the discretion of each prosecutor and each has interpreted that differently.

This is the second piece of legislation Daniels vetoed this session. On May 10, he vetoed House Enrolled Act 1177 regarding boards of trustees for universities. The legislation required that the majority of the members of the board of trustees of Indiana University and Ball State University be residents of Indiana, and that all I.U. board members be citizens of the United States.

The governor’s office announced Friday that the governor has now taken action on all legislation enacted during the 2011 legislative session.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  2. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  3. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

  4. Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone

  5. John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.

ADVERTISEMENT