ARLINGTON, Va.—Every year, Indiana prosecutors produce reports for lawmakers detailing forfeiture activity in the state. But a new study from the Institute for Justice (IJ), “Bad Data: How Indiana’s Flawed Forfeiture Reporting Misinforms Hoosiers,” shows these reports are missing large numbers of cases and are riddled with errors.

“Despite a state law that requires forfeiture cases to be reported, we found almost 30% never were,” said IJ Senior Research Analyst David Warren, Ph.D. “And the cases that were reported frequently contained errors that ultimately create a false impression of how Indiana’s forfeiture system works.” 

IJ compared forfeiture cases appearing in a large dataset of court records between 2016 and 2021 to cases that appeared in annual forfeiture reports. The results were shocking. The study estimates that nearly 2,000 cases worth $10 million were not reported as required by law. Lawmakers reviewing these reports would be unaware of nearly 30% of known forfeiture cases over those six years.

IJ also analyzed a large random sample of 415 forfeiture cases that were reported by prosecutors between 2019 and 2023, comparing characteristics about the cases reported by prosecutors to actual information in the court records. The result: About two-thirds of reported cases had at least one error on key details such as how much property was forfeited or whether a settlement occurred.

The study also shows that Indiana’s unique and problematic system of farming out civil forfeiture prosecutions to private attorneys who get paid only if they win may play a role in reporting problems. More than 70% of unreported cases came from such “contingency-fee” counties.

This nonreporting and misreporting likely distorts the picture lawmakers get from the reports. Reports say owners rarely contest forfeiture, fighting for their property in only 0.2% of cases. But in IJ’s sample, owners contested in more than a third of cases. Reports also suggest forfeiture cases rarely settle—just 4% of cases. But in IJ’s sample, nearly 30% settled, with most people getting back some or all of what was seized from them.

“Accurate reporting is essential for ensuring transparency and effective oversight of civil forfeiture practices authorized by state law,” said IJ Legislative Counsel Alasdair Whitney. “When reporting falls short, lawmakers lack the information needed to assess how forfeiture operates in practice, and public confidence in the justice system suffers. It’s a lose-lose result.”

For a decade, IJ has exposed deep problems with Indiana’s use of civil forfeiture, which allows prosecutors to take property outside of the criminal prosecution process. IJ is currently waiting for a decision from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a class action suit fighting private attorneys’ role in forfeiture. Another IJ class action suit challenges Marion County’s practice of seizing and forfeiting cash moving through the Indianapolis FedEx shipping hub. Finally, IJ successfully fought for the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause to apply to Indiana in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Timbs v. Indiana.