New IJ Study Finds Bad Data In Indiana Forfeiture Reports

Indiana enacted forfeiture reporting requirements more than a decade ago with a simple goal: to give lawmakers and the public a clear picture of how forfeiture works in the state. Now a new study from IJ’s strategic research team shows the state’s forfeiture reporting system instead delivers incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading information—in short, bad data.

Comparing prosecutors’ reports with court records, the study, titled Bad Data, found nearly 2,000 forfeiture cases worth about $10 million between 2016 and 2021 that were never reported—almost 30% of known cases statewide. More than 70% came from counties that farm out the prosecution of forfeiture cases to private attorneys who are paid only if they win. Unique to Indiana, this arrangement creates a conflict of interest by giving attorneys a direct financial stake in the outcome of forfeiture cases. (A current IJ class action challenges this scheme.)

Read “Bad Data”

A new study from IJ’s strategic research team shows the state’s forfeiture reporting system instead delivers incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading information—in short, bad data.

When cases are reported, accuracy is the exception rather than the rule. In a random sample of reported cases from 2019 to 2023, about two-thirds contained an error on at least one of 14 characteristics, including whether seized property was returned, whether the case was settled, and even the amount forfeited.

Many of the errors make it look like property is hardly ever wrongfully seized from people who might be innocent, but the real data suggest this is unlikely to be true.

Indeed, although proponents point to low rates of contested cases as evidence forfeiture targets criminals, property owners in Indiana contest forfeiture far more often than official reports suggest. And when they do, prosecutors frequently settle—often returning some or all of what was seized. Owners are also more likely to fight when more money is at stake, suggesting at least some owners fail to fight because of the time, money, and trouble it would take.

While the picture painted of forfeiture in Indiana is fuzzy, the takeaway is clear: Indiana’s forfeiture reporting misleads lawmakers and the public, masking serious flaws in a system that already violates property and due process rights. IJ is using the good data in Bad Data to push for full and accurate reporting not just in Indiana but also in other states. Reporting reform is a first step toward dismantling civil forfeiture nationwide.

David Warren is an IJ senior research analyst.