HB 1378
In CommitteeHouse
Eluding & resisting arrest
Concerning penalties related to eluding police vehicles and resisting arrest.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill strengthens penalties and enforcement tools for attempting to elude a police vehicle, including mandatory vehicle impoundment for longer periods, potential vehicle forfeiture after conviction, and electronic monitoring for both pretrial release and post-conviction supervision. It also expands the list of offenses requiring Department of Corrections supervision and increases community custody terms for this offense.
- A vehicle used to commit attempting to elude a police vehicle may be forfeited after conviction (not just impounded), with specific procedures for seizure, notice, and hearing rights for owners and lienholders.
- Vehicles impounded for attempting to elude a police vehicle must be held for 72 hours (instead of 12) before the driver or other registered owners can redeem them, unless multiple owners exist or a non-driver legal owner is available.
- Courts must require electronic monitoring as a condition of release for people charged with attempting to elude a police vehicle or resisting arrest—both adults and juveniles.
- People convicted of attempting to elude a police vehicle must be placed on electronic monitoring for the full duration of their community custody or parole term.
- Attempting to elude a police vehicle is added to the list of offenses requiring mandatory supervision by the Department of Corrections and triggers a 1-year community custody term.
Who is affected
- Drivers arrested for attempting to elude a police vehicle — Drivers arrested for attempting to elude a police vehicle face longer vehicle impound holds (72 hours instead of 12), potential vehicle forfeiture after conviction, and mandatory electronic monitoring during release conditions and community custody.
- Juveniles charged with attempting to elude a police vehicle — Juveniles charged with attempting to elude a police vehicle must submit to electronic monitoring during release, and those released on parole must also be monitored for the full parole term; they may be subject to mandatory parole programs and intensified supervision.
- People convicted of attempting to elude a police vehicle — People convicted of attempting to elude a police vehicle will be subject to mandatory electronic monitoring during community custody and parole, and the offense now triggers longer community custody terms (1 year) and requires Department of Corrections supervision.
- Law enforcement agencies — Law enforcement agencies gain new authority to seize and forfeit vehicles used in repeated attempts to elude police, and may retain or sell forfeited vehicles to fund traffic safety efforts.
- Vehicle owners (non-drivers) — Vehicle owners who are not the driver (e.g., family members, employers) may lose access to their vehicle for up to 72 hours if the driver is arrested for attempting to elude a police vehicle, and may face vehicle forfeiture if the driver is convicted.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for concerns
Potential Benefits (3)
Vehicle forfeiture after conviction—subject to lienholder rights and 72-hour hold with exceptions for non-driver owners—may deter repeat eluding and reduce dangerous high-speed chases, enhancing public safety for communities and first responders.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1 (forfeiture with lienholder protections), Sec. 3 (72-hour hold with exceptions for non-driver owners)Mandatory electronic monitoring for pretrial release and parole supervision may improve court appearance rates and reduce recidivism for this specific offense, supporting community safety and accountability without incarceration.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 5, 6, 11(1)(e), 12(3)(b)(vii) (mandatory electronic monitoring for adults and juveniles)Adding attempting to elude to mandatory DOC supervision and requiring 1-year community custody ensures structured post-release oversight, potentially reducing reoffending and supporting rehabilitation through supervision and services.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 7, 8, 9, 10 (adding attempting to elude to mandatory DOC supervision and 1-year community custody)
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandatory electronic monitoring for pretrial release and post-conviction supervision for attempting to elude or resisting arrest—applicable to adults and juveniles—imposes significant surveillance and restricts movement without requiring a conviction, potentially infringing on liberty interests and increasing stigma, especially for low-income individuals who may lack resources to pay for monitoring equipment or fees.
Rights & LibertiesLean industryRef: Sec. 5, 6, 11(1)(e), 12(3)(b)(vii), 12(3)(b)(A)Vehicle forfeiture and extended impoundment (72 hours vs. 12) disproportionately affect low-income drivers and non-driver owners (e.g., family members, gig workers using shared vehicles), who may rely on the vehicle for essential transportation to work, healthcare, or childcare—loss of access can disrupt employment and family stability.
HousingIndustryRef: Sec. 1 (forfeiture provisions), Sec. 3 (72-hour hold for redemption)Expanding mandatory supervision and extending community custody terms for attempting to elude increases state supervision burden and may strain community corrections resources, potentially reducing capacity for higher-risk offenders and undermining rehabilitation-focused supervision models.
Public SafetyIndustryRef: Sec. 7, 8, 9, 10 (adding attempting to elude to mandatory DOC supervision and increasing community custody to 1 year)Forfeiture proceeds are directed to enforcement-related activities (e.g., traffic safety, eluding police processing), which may incentivize over-policing of low-level offenses and shift local resources toward revenue generation rather than community-based safety strategies.
Local GovernmentIndustryRef: Sec. 1 (forfeiture proceeds to fund traffic safety/enforcement), Sec. 3 (72-hour hold, notice requirements)Extended impoundment and forfeiture can disrupt small business operations (e.g., delivery drivers, rideshare workers, independent contractors) who rely on personal vehicles for livelihood, potentially leading to lost wages or job loss—especially for those without alternative transportation or savings.
Business & EmploymentIndustryRef: Sec. 3 (72-hour hold), Sec. 1 (forfeiture), Sec. 12(3)(b)(vii) (mandatory monitoring for juveniles)
Who Is Most Affected
Low- and moderate-income drivers—especially gig workers, delivery drivers, and daily commuters—face disproportionate risk of losing essential transportation for up to 72 hours or permanently via forfeiture, risking job loss and financial instability. Non-driver owners (e.g., parents, employers) may also lose vehicle access despite no involvement in the offense.
Juveniles and their families face mandatory electronic monitoring during pretrial release and parole, which may impose financial burdens (device fees, compliance costs), stigmatize youth, and interfere with school or employment—particularly harmful for low-income families lacking privacy or stable housing.
Law enforcement agencies gain new forfeiture authority and funding mechanisms (vehicle sales/revenue to traffic safety programs), potentially enhancing resource availability for enforcement and prevention—but may also incentivize aggressive policing of eluding offenses to generate revenue.
Local governments (counties, cities) will bear increased costs for electronic monitoring, impoundment, storage, and forfeiture proceedings, while potentially gaining revenue from forfeited vehicles—net fiscal impact depends on implementation costs vs. proceeds, with potential strain on budgets in resource-limited jurisdictions.
People on community custody or parole face extended supervision (1-year minimum) and mandatory electronic monitoring, increasing administrative burden and risk of technical violations—potentially leading to reincarceration for non-criminal conduct, especially for those unable to afford monitoring or comply with strict conditions.