Alabama
Policing for Profit
Alabama earns a D- for its civil forfeiture laws.
Low bar to forfeit: Prosecutors must prove by “reasonable satisfaction,” a standard akin to preponderance of the evidence, that property is connected to a crime. Update: SB 210 (2021) codified preponderance of the evidence as the state’s standard of proof. This low standard is similar to but better established than the state’s previous standard.
Limited protections for the innocent: Third-party owners must prove their own innocence to recover seized property, unless real property is at stake. Update: SB 210 (2021) improved protections for innocent owners. Now, the government must prove third-party owners knew about criminal activity connected to any property, not just real property.
Large profit incentive: 100% of forfeiture proceeds go to law enforcement.
The letter grade reflects the state’s forfeiture laws as of December 2020. When we become aware of relevant reforms, we are updating the standard of proof, innocent owner burden and financial incentive language above, but we are not updating the letter grade.
Recent Reforms
- (2019) SB 191: Adopted new transparency requirements.
- (2021) SB 210: In addition to changes noted above, imposed new limits on participation in federal equitable sharing; banned seizures and forfeitures of cash $250 or less and of vehicles valued at less than $5,000; banned roadside waivers used to pressure motorists into abandoning seized property. Read more.
Recommendations
- End civil forfeiture
- Direct all forfeiture proceeds to a non-law enforcement fund
- Fully close the equitable sharing loophole
- Strengthen transparency and accountability requirements
State and Federal Forfeiture Revenues, 2000–2019
Between 2000 and 2019, Alabama law enforcement agencies generated more than $104 million in forfeiture revenue from federal equitable sharing. Alabama ranks 36th for its participation in the Department of Justice’s equitable sharing program. The state does not prevent state and local agencies from using equitable sharing to circumvent state forfeiture law.
At least $104 million in federal forfeiture revenue
2000–2019
| Year | Alabama Forfeiture Revenues | Dept. of Justice Equitable Sharing Proceeds | Treasury Equitable Sharing Proceeds | Total Equitable Sharing Proceeds |
$0 ↦
$10,052,687
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | Unknown | $1,898,205 | $250,000 | $2,148,205 | |
| 2001 | Unknown | $2,602,074 | $123,000 | $2,725,074 | |
| 2002 | Unknown | $1,968,319 | $269,000 | $2,237,319 | |
| 2003 | Unknown | $4,216,595 | $764,000 | $4,980,595 | |
| 2004 | Unknown | $6,628,648 | $91,000 | $6,719,648 | |
| 2005 | Unknown | $4,866,686 | $373,000 | $5,239,686 | |
| 2006 | Unknown | $5,314,799 | $4,000 | $5,318,799 | |
| 2007 | Unknown | $8,563,174 | $185,000 | $8,748,174 | |
| 2008 | Unknown | $6,500,693 | $19,000 | $6,519,693 | |
| 2009 | Unknown | $8,321,217 | $295,000 | $8,616,217 | |
| 2010 | Unknown | $8,236,687 | $1,816,000 | $10,052,687 | |
| 2011 | Unknown | $4,608,034 | $950,000 | $5,558,034 | |
| 2012 | Unknown | $8,429,272 | $216,000 | $8,645,272 | |
| 2013 | Unknown | $1,880,420 | $252,000 | $2,132,420 | |
| 2014 | Unknown | $5,095,019 | $993,000 | $6,088,019 | |
| 2015 | Unknown | $3,091,009 | $1,876,000 | $4,967,009 | |
| 2016 | Unknown | $2,338,392 | $724,000 | $3,062,392 | |
| 2017 | Unknown | $1,980,089 | $490,000 | $2,470,089 | |
| 2018 | Unknown | $4,951,811 | $253,000 | $5,204,811 | |
| 2019 | Unknown | 2034629.01 | $753,000 | 2787629.01 | |
| Totals | $0 | $93,525,772 | $10,696,000 | $104,221,772 |
State
Department of Justice
Treasury
|
Alabama Forfeiture Transparency and Accountability Report Card
| B | Tracking Seized Property |
|---|---|
| F | Accounting for Forfeiture Fund Spending |
| B | Statewide Forfeiture Reports |
| A | Accessibility of Forfeiture Records |
|---|---|
| F | Penalties for Failure to File a Report |
| F | Financial Audits of Forfeiture Accounts |
For full transparency and accountability grades, visit www.ij.org/TransparencyReportCards.
Forfeitures Under Alabama Law: Key Facts
Median Value
UnknownAlabama does not report property-level data necessary to calculate median forfeiture value.
Property Types
UnknownAlabama does not report the types of property forfeited.
Civil vs. Criminal
UnknownAlabama does not report whether forfeitures are processed under civil or criminal forfeiture law.
Expenditures
UnknownAlabama does not report how forfeiture funds are spent.
Data Notes
No statewide records available. Alabama had no reporting requirements before the reporting law enacted in 2019. Forfeiture data from the reporting system operated by the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency are expected in 2021 from the Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center Commission. Equitable sharing data are from DOJ’s and Treasury’s annual forfeiture reports.
Legal Sources
Standard of proof: Reasonable satisfaction, a standard akin to preponderance of the evidence.
Ex parte McConathy, 911 So. 2d 677, 681, 687–88 (Ala. 2005) (overturning forfeiture on grounds that mere suspicion that property was involved in a crime does not meet the “reasonable satisfaction” standard) (citations omitted); see also Alabama Evidence § 3:29 (3rd ed., 2019 update) (explaining that “reasonable satisfaction” is equivalent to the preponderance standard).
Innocent owner burden: Depends on the property. Generally, the owner bears the burden of proof. But for real property, the government bears the burden.
Ala. Code § 20-2-93(h).
Financial incentive: 100%.
Ala. Code § 20-2-93(e).