Home » Reports » Policing for Profit » Policing for Profit: California

California earns a C+ for its civil forfeiture laws:

  • Higher bar to forfeit property and conviction required
  • Stronger protections for innocent third-party property owners
  • 66.25% of forfeiture proceeds go to law enforcement

State Forfeiture Laws

Earning a C+, California’s civil forfeiture laws are above average, but law enforcement circumvents their intent through participation in the federal government’s equitable sharing program so aggressive that it ranks 50th—second worst—in the country. In California, to forfeit most kinds of property, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, and a conviction is required (though not necessarily the owner’s conviction). Only in drug cases where more than $25,000 is seized is the standard lower: clear and convincing evidence. When an innocent person asserts an interest in seized property, the government bears the burden of proving that the owner was aware of the property’s illegal use. California law lets law enforcement keep 66.25 percent of forfeiture revenue—less of an incentive than in many other states but still an incentive to seize property for financial gain.

The California Office of the Attorney General publishes annual reports of counties’ forfeiture income on its website, though it excludes important details, such as an accounting of expenditures from forfeiture funds. According to these reports, California law enforcement forfeited almost $280 million over the period of 2002 to 2013­—an annual average of more than $23 million.

Show State Law Sources
Standard of proof

Clear and convincing evidence for cash or cash equivalents of $25,000 or more; beyond a reasonable doubt—and a criminal conviction—for all other property, including real property.

Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11488.4(i); see also People v. $9,632.50 U.S. Currency, 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 125, 128 n.4 (Ct. App. 1998) (saying the standard of proof “in this case” for cash worth less than $25,000 is beyond a reasonable doubt).

Innocent owner burden


Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11488.5(d).

Profit incentive

66.25 percent (55.25 percent to police, 10 percent to prosecutors, 1 percent to a fund controlled by prosecutors).

Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11489(b)(2).

Reporting requirements

The Attorney General is required to compile annual aggregate forfeiture reports using data provided by counties.

Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11495(c)–(e).


Other sources

Drug Policy Alliance. (2015). Above the law: An investigation of civil asset forfeiture in California. Los Angeles, CA: Drug Policy Alliance. Retrieved from http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Drug_Policy_Alliance_Above_the_Law_Civil_Asset_Forfeiture_in_California.pdf.

State Forfeiture Data

Year Reported Forfeiture Proceeds
2002 $25,565,686
2003 $26,589,893
2004 $22,459,346
2005 $19,866,810
2006 $25,582,483
2007 $27,603,822
2008 $25,548,228
2009 $28,789,945
2010 $16,490,185
2011 $17,958,201
2012 $15,046,570
2013 $28,130,455
Total $279,631,624
Average per Year $23,302,635

Source: California Office of the Attorney General’s online calendar-year reports of all forfeitures made by county district attorneys and the attorney general. Forfeiture proceeds do not include the value of property retained for law enforcement use.

California ranks 50th for federal forfeiture, with over $696 million in Department of Justice equitable sharing proceeds from 2000 to 2013.

Federal Equitable Sharing

Unfortunately, California law enforcement has found a lucrative way to evade the state’s better-than-average laws: the federal government’s equitable sharing program. Its heavy participation in the program earns the state a rank of 50th. Indeed, a recent report by the Drug Policy Alliance noted that while state forfeiture revenue has remained flat, equitable sharing revenue has skyrocketed. Between 2000 and 2013, California agencies collected an eye-popping $696 million, or nearly $50 million each calendar year, through equitable sharing with the Department of Justice. A large majority of both assets seized and proceeds received resulted not from adoptions but from joint task forces and investigations with the federal government. This vehicle for equitable sharing will continue despite DOJ policy changes announced in January 2015. California law enforcement also hauled in almost $108 million from the Treasury Department’s equitable sharing program during fiscal years 2000 to 2013.

View Local Law Enforcement Data
(calendar years)
(fiscal years)
2000 $27,063,749 $17,368,000
2001 $29,138,488 $6,818,000
2002 $23,544,801 $4,573,000
2003 $25,953,184 $2,224,000
2004 $30,237,257 $2,247,000
2005 $33,281,599 $4,846,000
2006 $39,922,885 $1,080,000
2007 $46,296,566 $5,817,000
2008 $52,310,424 $9,482,000
2009 $64,093,182 $3,440,000
2010 $83,559,012 $9,660,000
2011 $81,176,283 $10,561,000
2012 $74,115,816 $17,264,000
2013 $85,536,782 $12,347,000
Total $696,230,027 $107,727,000
Average Per Year $49,730,716 $7,694,786

DOJ Equitable Sharing,
Adoptive vs. Joint, 2000-2013

Joint Task Forces and Investigations

DOJ Equitable Sharing Proceeds, 2000-2013

Sources: Institute for Justice analysis of DOJ forfeiture data obtained by FOIA; Treasury Forfeiture Fund Accountability Reports. Data include civil and criminal forfeitures. Because DOJ figures represent calendar years and Treasury figures cover fiscal years, they cannot be added.

Sign up to receive IJ's biweekly digital magazine, Liberty & Law along with breaking updates about our fight to protect the rights of all Americans.