May 15, Procedure, Civil Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Seizure of Property; Commencement of Forfeiture Proceedings

Similar documents
January 2, 2013 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO Evan C. Watson Sumner County Attorney 501 North Washington Wellington, KS 67152

October 5, Procedure, Civil Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Disposition of Forfeited Property; Use of Proceeds of Sale; Salary

April 29, Procedure, Civil Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Disposition of Forfeited Property; Use of Proceeds of Sale

May 24, 2012 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO Thomas A. Adrian Adrian & Pankratz 301 N. Main, Suite 400 Newton, Kansas 67114

May 1 1, Re: Fire Protection -- Fire Safety and Prevention -- Certification of Arson Investigators

(1)ffir~.of ~ J\±tarm\J (1i~mral

January 21, Criminal Procedure Offender Registration Registration of Offender; Duties of Sheriff

January 24, 2019 * * *

ROBERT T. STEPHAN ATTORNEY GENERAL. March 13, 1992

March 1, 2016 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO

August 30, Elections -- Conduct of Elections -- Mail Ballot Election Act; Date of Election

September 15, Fire Districts and Fire Departments; Initiation of Procedure. Cities and Municipalities Governmental Organization Consolidation of

April 18, Roads and Bridges -- County and Township Roads; County Road Unit System -- Bid Letting

HOUSE BILL No AN ACT concerning city-county consolidation; authorizing the consolidation of the city of Wichita and Sedgwick county.

May 14, Taxation--Collection of Delinquent Personal Property Taxes--Dormant Tax Judgments

K.S.A Supp and the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA) The statute requiring rate filings, K.S.A Supp (a), states in part:

No. 101,201 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, DOUGLAS LECLAIR, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

* * * ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO Kyle Smith Counsel for the Law Enforcement Training Commission 1620 S.W. Tyler Topeka, Kansas Re:

January 10, 1992 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO Lewis A. Heaven, Jr. City Attorney 9000 West 62nd Terrace Merriam, Kansas

February 28, 1979 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO Honorable W. E. Schaiff, Mayor City of Columbus 300 East Maple Columbus, Kansas

September 8, Personal and Real Property -- Real Estate Brokers and Salespersons -- Licensure of Nonresidents

ROBERT T. STEPHAN. July 16, 1987 ATTORNEY GENERAL

Substitute for SENATE BILL No. 323

December 2, Counties and County Officers County Commissioners Eligibility to Office of Commissioner; City Office; Police Officer

SENATE BILL No service, wireless telecommunications service, VoIP

HOUSE BILL No page 2

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 112,316. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, EBONY NGUYEN, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

April 18, Counties and County Officers Sheriff Budget; Charge and Custody of Jail

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE FLORIDA CONTRABAND FORFEITURE ACT

July 5, 1985 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO

January 24, Counties and County Officers County Commissioners Powers of Board of Commissioners; Control of Expenditures

October 16, 2012 * * *

September 25, 2012 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO

HOUSE BILL No {As Amended by House Committee of the Whole} As Amended by House Committee

Appendix A NEW JERSEY COMMISSION ON CAPITAL BUDGETING AND PLANNING STATUTES

Senate Bill 175 prohibits the exercise of county home rule

July 13, RE: Proposed Change of Birth Certificate--In re: K.K.D

Session of HOUSE BILL No By Committee on Judiciary 2-1

TITLE 1. General Provisions for Use of Code of Ordinances. Enforcement of Ordinances; Issuance of Citations CHAPTER 1

April 24, Constitution of the State of Kansas Miscellaneous Lotteries

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,625 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, ST. JOHN TYLER, Appellant.

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

January 13, Public Health Health Care Providers Do Not Resuscitate Orders or Directives; Definitions; Immunity from Liability

Summary of Procedures

April 25, Procedure, Civil Rules of Civil Procedure Parties; Capacity; Real Party in Interest

March 17, Elections -- Nominations; Terms of Office; Vacancies -- Vacancies in the Office of Judge of the District Court

May 13, 1985 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO

June 10, 1991 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO Dear Ms. Jeffrey: As acting county counselor you request our opinion regarding

Session of SENATE BILL No. 31. By Committee on Ethics, Elections and Local Government 1-17

{As Amended by House Committee of the Whole} As Amended by House Committee. As Amended by Senate Committee. SENATE BILL No. 50

COUNTY OF CAYUGA LOCAL LAW NO. OF THE YEAR 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

November 12, Personal and Real Property--Real Estate Brokers and Salesmen--Educational Requirements

April 10, Constitution of the United States Amendment 4; Searches and Seizures Plain View Exception

HOUSE BILL No As Amended by House Committee

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 115,232 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 11 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 114,271. CITY OF TOPEKA, KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

REVISED SCHEDULE OF CHARGES, COSTS AND FEES TO BE CHARGED BY THE CLERKS OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS UNDER COURTS ARTICLE, Effective May 17, 2018

January 10, Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Consumer Protection Miscellaneous Method of Payment; Express Authorization Required

May 15, Intoxicating Liquors and Beverages -- Misdemeanors and Nuisances -- "Open Saloon" Defined and Prohibited

AN ORDINANCE OF THE, MISSOURI, ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCH WARRANTS

Joint Rules of the Senate and House of Representatives

ROBERT T. STEPHAN ATTORNEY GENERAL. May 24, 1991

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,564 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, DAVID A. HARESNAPE, Appellant.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 119,274 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant,

S 2807 S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 113,369 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, ENOCH CLARK, JR., Appellant.

AN ACT RELATING TO SANITARY PROJECTS; AMENDING THE SANITARY PROJECTS ACT WITH REGARD TO ASSOCIATIONS; AMENDING, REPEALING AND

CARLA J. STOVALL ATIORNEY GENERAL September 6, 1995 CONSUMER PROTECTION: FAX:

Session of SENATE BILL No By Committee on Ways and Means 3-20

February 19, 1991 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO

AN ORDINANCE INTRODUCED BY INTERIM CITY MANAGER DOUG

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,008 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. ROBERT TAYLOR GOULD, Appellee,

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 113,233 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, BRANDON M. DAWSON, Appellant.

April 25, Re: Counties and County Officers -- Planning and Zoning -- Regulations Inapplicable to Agricultural Purposes; Home Rule Authority

Kansas Open Meetings Act (KOMA) Michael J. Smith, Assistant Attorney General. Revision date: August 2009

October 26, 1990 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO David R. Heger Miami County Counselor P.O. Box S. Pearl Paola, Kansas

No. 108,116 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

Civil Asset Forfeiture; Kansas Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Repository; HB 2459

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 119,127 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. DIANE E. and THOMAS G. SCANLON, Appellants,

April 7, 1982 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO Alan F. Alderson General Counsel Department of Revenue State Office Building Topeka, Kansas 66625

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO Howard Schwartz Judicial Administrator 301 W. 10th St. Kansas Judicial Center Topeka, Kansas Re:

Session of SENATE BILL No. 4. By Senator Hensley 12-19

IC 36-3 ARTICLE 3. GOVERNMENT OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY (UNIGOV) IC Chapter 1. Consolidation and Transfer of Powers

John R. Wine, Jr. General Counsel Secretary of State's Office 2nd Floor, State Capitol Topeka, Kansas Re:

May 30, 1989 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO

[Second Reprint] ASSEMBLY, No STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 214th LEGISLATURE INTRODUCED JUNE 14, 2010

The Municipal Unit and Country Act

(Reprinted with amendments adopted on May 17, 2017) SECOND REPRINT S.B. 33. Referred to Committee on Judiciary

Session of SENATE BILL No. 49. By Senator Faust-Goudeau 1-20

May 5, Irrigation--Districts--Qualification of Voters at District Elections

ASSEMBLY, No STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 209th LEGISLATURE PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2000 SESSION

CHAPTER 10 JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT; TOWNSHIPS. District Court

Session of HOUSE BILL No By Committee on Federal and State Affairs 3-25

MARCH 6, Referred to Committee on Transportation. SUMMARY Authorizes the seizure and storage of certain unmanned aerial vehicles.

March 19, Department of Administration--Contracts for State Building Projects--Listing of Subcontractors

March 31, 1982 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO The Honorable Jack H. Brier Secretary of State 2nd Floor - Capitol Topeka, Kansas 66612

July 1, Based upon this information, you desire an opinion of this Office on the following issues:

1 SB By Senator Allen. 4 RFD: Governmental Affairs. 5 First Read: 07-FEB-17 6 PFD: 02/06/2017. Page 0

Transcription:

May 15, 2012 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2012-13 Mr. Larry Markle Chautauqua County Attorney 215 N. Chautauqua Sedan, Kansas 67361 Re: Procedure, Civil Costs Docket Fees; Authorized Only By Legislative Enactment; Additional Costs; Taxation of Costs; Items Allowable as Costs; Municipalities Exempt from Depositing Court Costs; Exceptions Procedure, Civil Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Seizure of Property; Commencement of Forfeiture Proceedings Synopsis: The court may not require payment of a docket fee by law enforcement agencies to file an asset forfeiture case pursuant to the Kansas Standard Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Act. However, once the case has been filed, the court has statutory authority to exercise its discretion in taxing costs against the parties for maintaining an action. The docket fee is allowable as court costs. Once the court determines to award court costs, the amount of the docket fee shall be assessed as costs. We conclude the 2011 legislative amendments to K.S.A. 60-4107(b)(3) and 60-4109(b) do not change this conclusion. Cited herein: K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-2001; 60-2003; 60-2005; K.S.A. 60-4101; K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-4104; 60-4107; 60-4109; 60-4112; 60-4113; K.S.A. 60-4114; and 60-4115. * * * Dear Mr. Markle: As County Attorney for Chautauqua County, you ask for our opinion on whether a court may tax court costs in asset forfeiture cases filed by law enforcement agencies pursuant

Page 2 to the Kansas Standard Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Act ( the Act ) 1. At issue, in essence, is whether a docket fee may be assessed as court costs at the conclusion of an asset forfeiture case when K.S.A. 60-2005 exempts municipalities, defined to include law enforcement agencies, from depositing court costs or paying docket fees prescribed by any other of law of this state. 2 We would note at the outset that this same statute provides that if costs are assessed against the municipality, then such costs shall include the docket fee. You also ask what effect the 2011 legislative changes to K.S.A. 60-4107(b)(3) and 60-4109(b) have on whether a court may tax court costs in asset forfeiture cases filed by law enforcement agencies pursuant to the Act. We will answer each of your questions in turn. Municipality Exemption Pursuant to K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-2005 Our analysis follows the rules of statutory interpretation employed by the courts. The fundamental rule of statutory interpretation is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. 3 The first step to ascertain legislative intent is through the language of the statutory scheme enacted. 4 When a statute is plain and unambiguous, we neither speculate as to the legislative intent behind it nor read into the statute something not readily found in it. 5 The provisions of an act should be considered in pari materia, with a view of reconciling and bringing the provisions into a workable harmony if possible. 6 Because your question involves both docket fees and court costs, we review relevant statutes concerning docket fees and court costs individually and also in relation to asset forfeiture cases. Black's Law Dictionary defines docket fees to mean [a] fee charged by a court for filing a claim. 7 K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-2001(a) provides that [e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, no case shall be filed or docketed in the district court, whether original or appealed, without payment of a docket fee.... 8 A docket fee shall only be established by an act of the legislature.... 9 The docket fees and the fees for service 1 K.S.A. 60-4101 et seq. 2 K.S.A. 60-2005 states, The state of Kansas and all municipalities in this state, as defined in K.S.A. 12-105a, and amendments thereto, are hereby exempt, in any civil action in which such state or municipality is involved, from depositing court costs or paying docket fees prescribed by any other law of this state, except that if the costs are assessed against the state of Kansas or any municipality in this state in any such action, such costs shall include the amount of the docket fee prescribed by K.S.A. 60-2001, and amendments thereto, together with any additional courts costs accrued in the action. (Emphasis added). 3 State v. Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood, 291 Kan. 322, 357 (2010). 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Beachner Constr. Co., 289 Kan. 1262, 1270 (2009). 7 Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). 8 K.S.A 2011 Supp. 60-2001(a). 9 Id.

Page 3 of process shall be the only costs assessed in each case for services of the clerk of the district court and the sheriff. 10 While a docket fee is one that is charged for filing a lawsuit, court costs are designed to address expenses incurred in the maintenance of a lawsuit. 11 The taxation of costs is a matter controlled by statute, and a court has no inherent power to award costs beyond statutory authorization. 12 K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-2003 lists items that may be included as court costs. 13 These include the docket fee as provided for by K.S.A. 60-2001, and amendments thereto... 14 and [s]uch other charges as are by statute authorized to be taxed as costs. 15 Turning to your question, and applying the rules of statutory construction, we need not speculate about the legislative intent. K.S.A 2011 Supp. 60-2001 requires a docket fee to be paid in Chapter 60 proceedings unless a statute specifically exempts such payment. K.S.A 2011 Supp. 60-2005 is such a statute. It exempts municipalities 16, which you stated in your letter has been interpreted to include law enforcement agencies, from paying docket fees and court costs; however, it also provides the court statutory authority to use its discretion to assess court costs against the municipality. Courts are authorized to assess court costs for items listed in K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-2003. Docket fees are an item authorized by K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-2003. We conclude, therefore, that the court may not require payment of a docket fee by law enforcement agencies to file an asset forfeiture case pursuant to the Act. However, once the case has been filed, the court has statutory authority to exercise its discretion in taxing costs against the parties for maintaining an action. The docket fee is allowable as court costs. 2011 Legislative Changes to the Kansas Standard Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Act The Act contains specific provisions concerning both docket fees and court costs. For example, a law enforcement officer may constructively seize property by filing or recording in the public records relating to the type of property notice of seizure for forfeiture, 17 notice of pending forfeiture, 18 a forfeiture lien or a lis pendens. These filings 10 K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-2001(c). 11 Barnes v. Employment Security Board of Review, 210 Kan. 664, 681 (1972). 12 Hodges v. Lister, 207 Kan. 260, 266 (1971); Brown v. Zackert, 10 Kan.App.2d 466, 468 (1985). 13 K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-2003(1) through (8). 14 K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-2003(1). 15 K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-2003(8). 16 See K.S.A. 12-105a (... (a) Municipality means and includes county, township, city, school district of whatever name or nature, community junior college, municipal university, city, county or district hospital, drainage district, cemetery district, fire district, and other political subdivision or taxing units, and including their boards, bureaus, commissions, committees and other agencies, such as but not limited to, library board, park board, recreation commission, hospital board of trustees having power to create indebtedness and make payment of the same independently of the parent unit.... ). 17 See K.S.A. 60-4102(h) ( Notice of seizure for forfeiture means a written statement by a law enforcement agency that property has been seized and may be proceeded against pursuant to this act, and providing information concerning the property, the seizure, and the law enforcement agency ).

Page 4 or recordings are not subject to a filing fee or other charge, except that court costs may be assessed and, if assessed, shall include the amount of the docket fee prescribed by K.S.A. 60-2001, and amendments thereto, and any additional court costs accrued in the action. 19 Likewise, [t]he plaintiff s attorney, 20 without a filing fee, may file a lien for the forfeiture of property upon the initiation of any civil or criminal proceeding relating to conduct giving rise to forfeiture under this act or upon seizure for forfeiture. 21 Court costs may be assessed and, if assessed, shall include the amount of the docket fee prescribed by K.S.A. 60-2001, and amendments thereto, and any additional court costs accrued in the action.... 22 We need not speculate about the legislative intent in amending either K.S.A. 60-4107(c)(3) or 60-4109(b). The language in each of these sections is plain and unambiguous and unequivocally provides that no docket fee can be required in any of the circumstances described in these two sections to file or record the certain identified actions or to commence a forfeiture proceeding. Once a filing or recording as described in K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-4107(c) is made, or a forfeiture proceeding is commenced under K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-4109(b), the court may, in its discretion, assess court costs in the matter. Because the statutory language used in both sections provides that court costs may be assessed, the court clearly has the discretion in each case to determine whether court costs should be assessed. However, once a court determines to impose court costs, the plain language of the statute makes clear that the court has no discretion and must impose the amount of the docket fee prescribed by K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-2001 as court costs in the particular case. 18 See K.S.A. 60-4102(g) ( Notice of pending forfeiture means a written statement by the plaintiff's attorney following a seizure of property but prior to the filing of a judicial complaint against such property allowing for an administrative resolution to claims or recognition of exemptions ). 19 See K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-4107(c)(3). This statute was amended with the passage of 2011 Senate Bill No. 63 to grant the court discretion to assess court costs. 20 See K.S.A. 60-4102(m) ( Plaintiff s attorney means a county or district attorney, or the attorney general, such attorney s assistant, or another attorney approved, pursuant to subsections (h) and (i) of K.S.A. 60-4107, employed by a law enforcement agency to litigate a forfeiture on behalf of the agency ). 21 See K.S.A. 60-4102(s) ( Seizure for forfeiture means seizure of property by a law enforcement officer including a constructive seizure coupled with an assertion by the seizing agency or a plaintiff s attorney that the property is subject to forfeiture). 22 K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 60-4109(b). This statute also was amended with the passage of 2011 Senate Bill No. 63 to grant the court discretion to assess court costs.

Page 5 In conclusion, the 2011 legislative changes to K.S.A. 60-4107(c)(3) and 60-4109(b) make it abundantly clear that the court may not require payment of a docket fee by law enforcement agencies to file an asset forfeiture case. However, once the case has been filed, the court has statutory authority to exercise its discretion in taxing court costs against the parties for maintaining an action. If costs are assessed, then the amount of the docket fee shall be assessed as costs. Sincerely, Derek Schmidt Attorney General Athena Andaya Deputy Attorney General Lisa Mendoza Assistant Attorney General DS:AA:LM:ke