ARLINGTON, Va.—Today, the Institute for Justice (IJ) released a new edition of its landmark study of civil forfeiture, Policing for Profit. Each year, law enforcement nationwide uses civil forfeiture to take billions of dollars’ worth of property—cash, cars, and even homes—from people, often without ever proving anyone, let alone the owner, did anything wrong. The new edition shines a light on an additional problem with civil forfeiture that has attracted concern from the U.S. Supreme Court: a worrying lack of due process.

“Just two years ago, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Constitution promises you a timely and meaningful hearing before a neutral judge if police seize your property for civil forfeiture,” said IJ Senior Director of Strategic Research Lisa Knepper. “But modern civil forfeiture laws, as written and as practiced, frequently fail to deliver on that promise.”

Forfeiture is big business. Since 2000, governments nationwide have forfeited at least $82 billion worth of property, with more than $57 billion collected by the federal government and almost $25 billion collected by state and local governments. Over the past decade, federal revenue has been between $2 billion and $3 billion annually, aside from a few years with some unusually large cases. Meanwhile, revenues across 34 states with data have consistently totaled around $300 million to $350 million per year.

Policing for Profit grades states and the federal government on three components of forfeiture laws: the standard of proof required to connect property to a crime, protections for innocent owners at risk of losing property because someone else might have done something wrong, and the share of forfeiture proceeds awarded to law enforcement. Together, these provide an indication of how easy and lucrative forfeiture is for law enforcement.

Legislative efforts to reform civil forfeiture laws have stalled in the last few years. Indeed, since the last edition of this report was published in 2020, only one state—Maine—has dramatically improved its forfeiture laws. It did so by abolishing civil forfeiture and strengthening innocent owner protections. Thirty-five states and the federal government receive an overall grade of D+ or below.

These grades describe the later stages of the forfeiture process. For the first time, the current edition documents the civil forfeiture procedures leading up to a judicial hearing.

“In most cases, civil forfeiture effectively sidelines the judiciary,” said Dan Alban, IJ Senior Attorney and co-leader of the End Forfeiture Initiative. “Few property owners ever get their day in court.”

Available data indicate most owners lose property by default: between 62% and 76% in three states. At the same time, most federal forfeitures are administrative—71% of the Department of Justice’s forfeitures that generated revenue for the government.

This means there is no real hearing before a judge, no arguments from both sides, and no neutral examination of the forfeiture’s legal justification before an owner loses property forever. That’s because getting to court is often rife with procedural hurdles, like confusing notices, tight deadlines, and complex filing requirements, as well as significant costs. A single mistake virtually guarantees forfeiture by default. The few owners who do reach a courtroom may go months or longer without their property.

Across 24 states with data, half of currency forfeitures are worth less than $1,678. The estimated cost of hiring an attorney is nearly twice that, $3,300. And owners usually have 30 days or fewer to file claims or respond to the government’s forfeiture complaints.  

“Civil forfeiture’s flaws are fundamental, and the solution is to simply end both it and the perverse financial incentive that fuels it,” said Kirby West, IJ Senior Attorney and co-leader of the End Forfeiture Initiative. “If the government seeks to permanently take someone’s property, it should do so by proving that person’s guilt through ordinary criminal procedures—and without a financial stake in the outcome.” 

The Institute for Justice is a nonprofit, public interest law firm that protects property rights nationwide. IJ is currently litigating a class action lawsuit against the Transportation Security Administration and Drug Enforcement Administration over their unconstitutional searches and seizures of flyers’ cash. IJ’s advocacy led the Biden administration to end the DEA’s controversial Transportation Interdiction Program, which targeted travelers at airports and train stations. IJ is also continuing with lawsuits against civil forfeiture schemes in Indiana, Nevada, and Michigan. IJ has also published peer-reviewed research showing that New Mexico’s reform abolishing civil forfeiture and the financial incentive had no impact on crime rates in the state.