Source: https://www.tdcaa.com/journal/how-to-spend-discretionary-funds/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 01:10:40+00:00

Document:
In keeping with the tradition of the esteemed TDCAA research attorneys of the past,1 the time has come for us to bring you an update on the law governing expenditures of hot check and asset forfeiture funds. These issues are ever on the FAQ list of the research attorney, and with all the changes that have occurred since the last update in 2008, we figured it was time to fill you in on some new restrictions as well as give you a refresher course on all things discretionary funds-related.
While the hot check provisions have essentially stayed the same, the legislature made a number of significant changes to Chapter 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2011 that affect how prosecutors and law enforcement can use asset forfeiture proceeds. Responding to reports of abuse and misuse of funds, the legislature delineated several prohibited expenditures in CCP art. 59.06 and created new procedures for auditing and enforcement. Below is a brief review of the rules governing hot check funds and a highlight of some of the most important asset forfeiture fund guidelines for prosecutors.
Nothing in the law prohibits the collection of a fee for each hot check written.
The rules regarding expenditures that may be made from a hot check fund have not changed since our last update. The elected prosecutor still retains sole administrative discretion over the hot check fund and need not get commissioners court approval before making expenditures.5 That is not to say the fund is free from all county oversight, however. The fund is still subject to audits by the county auditor,6 and all interest that accrues on the account must be severed from the principal for the benefit of the county.7 See the PDF below for a quick summary of the major do’s and don’ts when it comes to spending hot check funds.
The legislature made sweeping changes to CCP chapter 59 in 2011, adopting new restrictions on the ways asset forfeiture funds can be used and providing for new auditing and enforcement mechanisms by the attorney general.8 But generally speaking, the ways in which property and their proceeds are initially to be divided between prosecutors and law enforcement stayed the same, with only a few exceptions.
Perhaps of most interest to prosecutors is CCP art. 59.06(d-1), which outlines several new express spending prohibitions applicable to both prosecutors and law enforcement agencies. Prohibited expenditures include campaign contributions, generalized donations, and the purchase of alcoholic beverages. Also new is the requirement that “lame duck” officials get commissioners court approval before making any expenditures from the fund.14 All of the new spending prohibitions are outlined in the chart below.
The final major changes made in 2011 invested the state auditor and the attorney general with auditing and enforcement authority. The state auditor now has authority to access books, accounts, vouchers, reports, and other records maintained by attorneys and law enforcement agencies under CCP art. 56.09 and must notify the attorney general of possible spending violations.15 The attorney general may then initiate a suit for injunctive relief, a civil penalty of up to $100,000, or both if a law enforcement agency or attorney for the State is found to have knowingly violated the law.16 Prosecutors should keep these new provisions in mind and take note of all spending restrictions before making expenditures from an asset forfeiture fund.
• Is the expenditure related to the official business of the office?
• Are there any other constitutional or statutory provisions prohibiting the expenditure?
• Is the expenditure for an official purpose of the office (prosecutors) or for a law enforcement purpose (agencies)?
• If the forfeited property is real or personal property, will the law enforcement agency maintain, repair, use, and operate the property for official purposes?
Remember that you can always call the association at 512/474-2436 with questions you may have about hot check and asset forfeiture funds, or any other issues that arise. We are here to help!
1 Markus Kypreos wrote the original article on asset forfeiture and hot check funds in 2005, and Sean Johnson brought you an update in 2008.
2 Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. art. 102.007(c).
3 Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §3.506 (substituting “maximum processing fee of $30” for “reasonable processing fee of not more than $30”).
4 Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. art. 102.007(g).
5 Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. JM-0313 (1985).
6 Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. GA-0053 (2003).
7 Op. Tex. Att’y Gen. JC-0062 (1999); Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code. §113.021(c).
8 Most hot check and asset forfeiture expenditures guidelines come from Attorney General opinions, but as the attorney general’s own spokesperson recently reminded everyone, prosecutors still proceed at their own risk when abiding by those opinions: “It’s important to keep in mind that this opinion wouldn’t bind a court or a prosecutor to do anything at all. These opinions are purely advisory. They have no legal force or effect.” Tom Kelly, in a statement to the Austin American-Statesman newspaper on Friday, September 7, 2012.
9 Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. art. 59.06(b).
10 Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. art. 59.06(c). Note that the “official purposes” language applicable to prosecutor’s offices is arguably broader than that for law enforcement agencies; however, the extent of that leeway is not clearly defined.
11 Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. art. 59.06(a).
12 Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. art. 59.06(c-4).
13 Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. art. 59.06(d).
14 Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. art. 59.06(d-1).
15 Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. art. 59.061.
16 Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. art. 59.062.

References: art. 59
 art. 59
 art. 56
 art. 102
 §3
 art. 102
 §113
 art. 59
 art. 59
 art. 59
 art. 59
 art. 59
 art. 59
 art. 59
 art. 59