Kentucky
Kentucky earns a D- for its civil forfeiture laws.
Low bar to forfeit most property: In general, prosecutors’ standard is akin to probable cause (“slight evidence of traceability” to a crime), and the owner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that property is not connected to a crime. For real property, prosecutors’ standard is clear and convincing evidence.
Limited protections for the innocent: Third-party owners must prove their own innocence to recover seized property, unless real property is at stake.
Large profit incentive: 100% of forfeiture proceeds go to law enforcement (85% to the seizing agencies and 15% to the Office of the Attorney General or the Prosecutors Advisory Council).
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
- None.
Recommendations
- End civil forfeiture
- Direct all forfeiture proceeds to a non-law enforcement fund
- Strengthen protections for innocent third-party owners
- Close the equitable sharing loophole
- Strengthen transparency and accountability requirements
State and Federal Forfeiture Revenues, 2000-2019
Between 2007 and 2019, Kentucky law enforcement agencies forfeited more than $41 million under state law. Between 2000 and 2019, they generated an additional $118 million from federal equitable sharing, for a total of at least $159 million in forfeiture revenue. Kentucky ranks 35th 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 $159 million in state and federal forfeiture revenue
2000–2019
| Year | Kentucky Forfeiture Revenues | Dept. of Justice Equitable Sharing Proceeds | Treasury Equitable Sharing Proceeds | Total |
$0 ↦
$18,236,079
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | Unknown | $2,497,441 | $35,000 | $2,532,441 | |
| 2001 | Unknown | $4,938,459 | $94,000 | $5,032,459 | |
| 2002 | Unknown | $2,691,400 | $355,000 | $3,046,400 | |
| 2003 | Unknown | $2,233,489 | $156,000 | $2,389,489 | |
| 2004 | Unknown | $3,886,825 | $211,000 | $4,097,825 | |
| 2005 | Unknown | $3,441,424 | $1,460,000 | $4,901,424 | |
| 2006 | Unknown | $5,621,490 | $254,000 | $5,875,490 | |
| 2007 | $979,989 | $7,562,868 | $311,000 | $8,853,857 | |
| 2008 | $805,911 | $5,865,895 | $783,000 | $7,454,806 | |
| 2009 | $2,116,603 | $4,234,189 | $697,000 | $7,047,792 | |
| 2010 | $1,850,887 | $4,845,652 | $460,000 | $7,156,539 | |
| 2011 | $2,039,800 | $8,126,673 | $439,000 | $10,605,473 | |
| 2012 | $2,038,917 | $5,125,641 | $846,000 | $8,010,558 | |
| 2013 | $2,270,303 | $6,280,647 | $308,000 | $8,858,950 | |
| 2014 | $3,217,098 | $5,154,616 | $1,728,000 | $10,099,714 | |
| 2015 | $3,197,487 | $5,965,162 | $1,335,000 | $10,497,649 | |
| 2016 | $4,915,588 | $4,390,196 | $1,814,000 | $11,119,784 | |
| 2017 | $3,204,986 | $4,599,718 | $346,000 | $8,150,704 | |
| 2018 | $5,512,007 | $9,484,449 | $980,000 | $15,976,456 | |
| 2019 | $9,320,083 | $7,980,996 | $935,000 | $18,236,079 | |
| Totals | $41,469,659 | $104,927,230 | $13,547,000 | $159,943,889 |
State
Department of Justice
Treasury
|
Forfeitures Under Kentucky Law: Key Facts
Median Value
UnknownKentucky does not report property-level data necessary to calculate median forfeiture value.
Property Types
UnknownKentucky does not report the types of property forfeited.
Civil vs. Criminal
UNKNOWNKentucky does not report whether forfeitures are processed under civil or criminal forfeiture law.
Expenditures
UNKNOWNKentucky does not report how forfeiture funds are spent.
Data Notes
Agency-level forfeiture proceeds data were obtained via public records requests to the Kentucky Office of Drug Control Policy. Historically, only a handful of agencies regularly submitted required reports to ODCP. Between 2014 and 2018, the number of reporting agencies more than doubled. Increased compliance with reporting requirements likely accounts for the large jump in forfeiture proceeds in recent years. 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: In general, the government need only show “slight evidence of traceability” to a crime, a standard akin to probable cause, at which the owner must show the property’s innocence by clear and convincing evidence. The government’s standard of proof increases to clear and convincing evidence for real property.
Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 218A.410(1)(j); Robbins v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 60, 64–65 (Ky. 2011); Gritton v. Commonwealth, 477 S.W.3d 603, 605 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015) (confirming this procedure generally applies to forfeitures of other personal property as well as money).
Innocent owner burden: Depends on the property. Generally, the owner bears the burden of proof. But for real property, the government bears the burden.
Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 218A.410(1)(j); Robbins v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 60, 64–65 (Ky. 2011).
Financial incentive: 100% (85% to the law enforcement agencies seizing the property, 15% to the Office of the Attorney General or to the Prosecutors Advisory Council).
Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 218A.420(4).