Policy makers, attorneys and law enforcement are looking for a compromise on a proposed House bill for civil asset forfeitures.

Testimonies continued Monday morning on House Bill 12-86.

Something many on both sides of the issue agree on is the need for transparency and a reporting system for the forfeitures and where funds are being allocated.

Those who testified in opposition say keeping the funds at the local level for law enforcement across the state is important.

Rep. Rick Becker, R-Bismarck, proposed a 38-page bill asking for more transparency, moving forfeiture funds from the local level to the state, a reporting system on where the money is going, and a need for a criminal conviction.

"Take away that aspect of the more you seize the more money you get," Becker said.

Law enforcement officers like, Sgt Mike Bolme with the Bismarck Police Department, say no one is out to take innocent peoples properties. Bolme says they're after evidence, not after forfeiture.

Multiple law enforcement agencies agree with the accountability aspect of the bill and say they have no problem with a reporting system of where the funds are going.

"Our preference would be that the funds remain at the local control because we all know where are funds are needed best, because we're the ones on the streets fighting crime," said Lt. Dustin Olson, Burleigh County Sheriff's Department.

The North Dakota Sheriff's and Deputies Association and the Attorneys Association also disagree with where the funds will be going through the bill and with the requirement of a criminal conviction for a forfeiture to happen.

Becker says the Institute for Justice, Heartland Institute, ACLU, Americans for Prosperity, Hazlitt Policy Center, and Young Americans for Liberty are all for the bill.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Kim Koppelman, R-West Fargo, assigned three people to a subcommittee to continue working on the bill.