Home » Reports » Policing for Profit » Policing for Profit: Missouri

Missouri earns a B+ for its civil forfeiture laws:

  • Conviction required, but low bar to connect property to the crime
  • Poor protections for innocent third-party property owners
  • No forfeiture proceeds go to law enforcement

State Forfeiture Laws

Missouri’s civil forfeiture laws are better than most, scoring a B+. Unlike most states, Missouri requires a criminal conviction or a guilty plea before property can be forfeited civilly. However, from there, the government need only connect the property to the crime only by a preponderance of the evidence. And an innocent owner wishing to have property returned must intervene and prove that she had no knowledge of the criminal activity of which her property is accused in order to recover it. Finally, Missouri provides no incentive to police for profit: All forfeiture money must be used to fund schools.

Missouri’s forfeiture reporting requirements look good on paper, but they do little to provide transparency in actuality. Law enforcement officers must report seizures and forfeitures to their prosecuting attorneys or the attorney general, who then provide annual reports to the state auditor. These reports are presented to the Legislature and published on the state auditor’s website. Prosecuting attorneys and the attorney general are also required to detail any criminal charges that were filed and the final disposition of the property—an unusually high level of detail. However, reports only cover assets seized in that calendar year, so assets not fully forfeited by year’s end are simply reported as “pending” and will not appear again in future reports. Thus, these reports may never account for millions of dollars worth of forfeitures. In addition, several Missouri agencies failed to report their forfeitures on a yearly basis. The data available show that agencies reportedly forfeited approximately $1.6 million between 2000 and 2014, but this figure likely severely undercounts forfeitures.

Show State Law Sources
Standard of proof

Preponderance of the evidence and a criminal conviction or guilty plea.

Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 513.607(2), (6), .617(1), .645(6); City of Springfield v. Gee, 149 S.W.3d 609, 615–16 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004); State v. Eicholz, 999 S.W.2d 738, 742–43 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999); see also Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 936 S.W.2d 104, 110 (Mo. 1996) (noting preponderance is the minimum standard in civil cases).

Innocent owner burden


Mo. Rev. Stat. § 513.615; State v. Beaird, 914 S.W.2d 374, 378 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996); State v. 1973 Fleetwood Mobile Home, 802 S.W.2d 582, 584 & n.3 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).

Profit incentive

All forfeiture proceeds go to fund schools.

Mo. Const. art. IX, § 7; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 513.623.

Reporting requirements

Agencies are required to report seizures to the prosecuting attorney or attorney general, who must then create annual aggregate reports and submit them to the state auditor.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 513.607(6)(2), (8)–(10).


State Forfeiture Data

Year Reported Forfeiture Proceeds
2000 $115,156
2001 $224,721
2002 $231,255
2003 $210,340
2004 $45,273
2005 $71,225
2006 $74,223
2007 $74,461
2008 $58,532
2009 $30,673
2010 $25,974
2011 $158,589
2012 $83,868
2013 $116,220
2014 $127,856
Total $1,648,366
Average per year $109,891

Source: Annual state auditor reports provided online that compile reports submitted by the state Office of the Attorney General and prosecuting attorneys. Proceeds represent forfeitures completed and transferred to the state during the calendar year in which they were seized. Millions of dollars still pending at the end of a calendar year are not accounted for in the reports, and many counties failed to file reports each year.

Missouri ranks 34th for federal forfeiture, with over $126 million in Department of Justice equitable sharing proceeds from 2000 to 2013.

Federal Equitable Sharing

Missouri law enforcement’s participation in the Department of Justice’s equitable sharing program earns the state 34th place when compared to other states. Missouri agencies received $126.7 million in DOJ equitable sharing proceeds between 2000 and 2013—more than $9 million per calendar year. The 2015 DOJ policy change intended to curb the practice is unlikely to affect much equitable sharing activity in Missouri: 82 percent of payments to state and local law enforcement came from joint task forces and investigations, seizures largely unaffected by the new policy. The Show-Me State also received over $11 million in forfeiture funds from the Treasury Department between fiscal years 2000 and 2013.

View Local Law Enforcement Data
(calendar years)
(fiscal years)
2000 $7,348,177 $323,000
2001 $5,161,911 $464,000
2002 $3,105,749 $219,000
2003 $5,600,012 $207,000
2004 $6,462,518 $32,000
2005 $8,483,669 $32,000
2006 $9,165,824 $229,000
2007 $11,952,962 $118,000
2008 $10,459,559 $55,000
2009 $20,135,700 $224,000
2010 $12,871,134 $1,459,000
2011 $10,848,192 $1,677,000
2012 $8,855,773 $748,000
2013 $6,271,159 $5,255,000
Total $126,722,340 $11,042,000
Average Per Year $9,051,596 $788,714

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.