Connecticut
Connecticut earns a C for its civil forfeiture laws.
Higher bar to forfeit: Moderate conviction provision applies in drug, identity theft and sex-trafficking cases, even if forfeiture is uncontested. It does not require conviction of the owner, only that a “person” be convicted. For other crimes, the owner must be convicted. Once conviction provision is satisfied, property must be linked to the crime by clear and convincing evidence.
Stronger protections for the innocent: The government must prove third-party owners knew about criminal activity connected to their property.
Large profit incentive: In drug cases, 69.5% of forfeiture proceeds go to law enforcement (59.5% to police and 10% to prosecutors); none in all other cases.
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
- (2017) HB 7146: Created moderate conviction provision.
Recommendations
- End civil forfeiture
- Direct all forfeiture proceeds to a non-law enforcement fund
- Close the equitable sharing loophole
- Adopt strong transparency and accountability requirements
State and Federal Forfeiture Revenues, 2000–2019
Between 2000 and 2018, Connecticut law enforcement agencies forfeited more than $35 million under state law. Between 2000 and 2019, they generated an additional $51 million from federal equitable sharing, for a total of at least $86 million in forfeiture revenue. Connecticut ranks 28th 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 $86 million in state and federal forfeiture revenue
2000–2019
| Year | Connecticut Forfeiture Revenues | Dept. of Justice Equitable Sharing Proceeds | Treasury Equitable Sharing Proceeds | Total |
$0 ↦
$11,065,697
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | $568,270 | $704,026 | $94,000 | $1,366,296 | |
| 2001 | $1,056,994 | $1,441,489 | $292,000 | $2,790,483 | |
| 2002 | $1,707,712 | $352,271 | $85,000 | $2,144,983 | |
| 2003 | $1,559,135 | $1,261,087 | $31,000 | $2,851,222 | |
| 2004 | $2,444,679 | $1,350,653 | $66,000 | $3,861,332 | |
| 2005 | $1,788,705 | $2,786,594 | $9,000 | $4,584,299 | |
| 2006 | $1,977,013 | $1,365,596 | $284,000 | $3,626,609 | |
| 2007 | $2,109,826 | $2,014,681 | $203,000 | $4,327,507 | |
| 2008 | $2,052,703 | $1,890,925 | $471,000 | $4,414,628 | |
| 2009 | $1,923,519 | $3,304,928 | $23,000 | $5,251,447 | |
| 2010 | $2,055,430 | $1,859,498 | $11,000 | $3,925,928 | |
| 2011 | $2,772,132 | $1,871,218 | $29,000 | $4,672,350 | |
| 2012 | $2,274,903 | $2,643,752 | $67,000 | $4,985,655 | |
| 2013 | $1,614,838 | $1,455,367 | $158,000 | $3,228,205 | |
| 2014 | $1,801,784 | $8,823,913 | $440,000 | $11,065,697 | |
| 2015 | $2,211,093 | $2,471,987 | $460,000 | $5,143,080 | |
| 2016 | $2,516,709 | $766,241 | $354,000 | $3,636,950 | |
| 2017 | $1,255,813 | $2,970,310 | $311,000 | $4,537,123 | |
| 2018 | $1,508,503 | $2,739,730 | $1,113,000 | $5,361,233 | |
| 2019 | Unavailable | $3,865,363 | $837,000 | $4,702,363 | |
| Totals | $35,199,761 | $45,939,629 | $5,338,000 | $86,477,390 |
State
Department of Justice
Treasury
|
Forfeitures Under Connecticut Law: Key Facts
Median Value
$665From 2015 to 2018, half of Connecticut’s currency forfeitures were worth less than $665.
Property Types
From 2000 to 2018, more than nine out of every 10 forfeitures in Connecticut were of currency.
Civil vs. Criminal
From 2000 to 2015, 71% of forfeited properties were processed under civil, not criminal, forfeiture laws.
Expenditures
UNKNOWNConnecticut does not report how forfeiture funds are spent.
Data Notes
Property-level calendar-year proceeds were obtained via public records requests to the Connecticut Chief State’s Attorney. Figures represent cash and property sold from forfeitures. Equitable sharing data are from DOJ’s and Treasury’s annual forfeiture reports. Due to differences in reporting and accounting practices, state figures may not match aggregate numbers produced by the state or cover the same 12-month period as the federal data.
Legal Sources
Standard of proof: Moderate conviction provision applies in drug, identity theft and sex-trafficking cases, even when forfeiture is uncontested. The provision does not require conviction of an owner, but only of a “person.” For other crimes, the owner must be convicted. After the conviction provision is satisfied, property must be linked to the crime by clear and convincing evidence.
Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 54-33g(a)–(c), (f), h(b), 554-36(c), h(c), o(b), o(c) (“court shall hold a hearing”), p(b)–(c).
Innocent owner burden: Government.
Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 54-33g(a)–(b), -36h(b)–(c), o(b)–(c), p(b)–(c); see, e.g., State v. One 2002 Chevrolet Coupe, No. CV2200243, 2003 WL 824266, at *3–4 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 23, 2003) (holding innocent owner could recover her property because state failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she knew about her son’s illegal activities).
Financial incentive: 69.5% (59.5% to police, 10% to prosecutors) in drug cases. In other cases, none.
Compare Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-36i(c) with id. §§ 54-33g(d)–(e), -36o(g), p(g).