Our data are not unique in casting doubt on the claimed benefits of civil forfeiture. Empirical research also suggests forfeiture is unrelated to crime—as well as to police effectiveness and illicit drug use.

Most recently, a peer-reviewed study by IJ authors revealed forfeiture had no effect on crime or police effectiveness in New Mexico. ¹  The study examined crime rates, arrest rates, and the number of sworn law enforcement officers before and after New Mexico abolished civil forfeiture and the financial incentive in criminal forfeiture in 2015. Notwithstanding forfeiture proponents’ predictions that the reforms would lead to more crime as police were less able to combat it, the study found no meaningful changes compared to control states. ²

Similarly, several studies have failed to find a meaningful link between forfeiture revenue and crime-fighting—this despite claims “civil asset forfeiture takes the material support of the criminals and instead makes it the material support of law enforcement.” ³  In the most recent of these, Seattle University economist Brian Kelly and Taylor de Laveaga of the Defender Association of Philadelphia examined whether revenue from the federal equitable sharing program was associated with arrest rates for violent and property crimes, a common measure of police effectiveness, and found no meaningful relationship. ⁴  That result matched those of two earlier studies by Kelly, one using state and local forfeiture revenue and the other using equitable sharing revenue. ⁵

The results of some studies suggest forfeiture may reduce police effectiveness. For example, one study examined the financial incentive’s role in police effectiveness using a composite measure of arrest rates and crime rates. ⁶  The results suggest police are less effective where laws allow them to retain more forfeiture proceeds. ⁷

And the two earlier Kelly studies also found no evidence forfeiture reduces illicit drug use, the ultimate goal of drug enforcement and thus drug forfeitures. One found no relationship between state and local forfeiture revenue and illicit drug use, while the other found similar results for equitable sharing revenue. ⁸