Why Owners Might Fail to Contest

Why might people facing the permanent loss of cash, cars, or other property fail to fight forfeiture? The reason suggested by police and prosecutors is that they know they have no legitimate claim to the property. As a police chief in Washington wrote in response to the state auditor’s report, “People sometimes do not contest the forfeiture because they know the seized items were not theirs or agree they were ill-gotten.” ¹

Without criminal proceedings, however, we cannot know whether owners of seized property were guilty of any particular crime and any money truly ill-gotten. More to the point, there are other reasons why people fail to fight that have nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Among them are insufficient or confusing notice, costs that outstrip the value of the property, inability to afford counsel and the difficulty of navigating civil proceedings without it, and residing far from the jurisdiction where the property was seized.

Notice may be insufficient, confusing, or both

On paper, civil forfeiture laws generally require seizing agencies, prosecutors, or both to provide owners (usually including potential owners identified through records searches) with some kind of notice their property has been seized and may be forfeited. These statutory requirements vary widely—as does their implementation. In practice, notice may not be timely, or it may not reach owners at all. When notices do reach owners, they often lack essential information, while being full of complicated and unfamiliar legal terminology.

One key problem is delay. Some states require prompt notice: as few as five days after the seizure in Connecticut, Florida, and Tennessee; seven days in New Hampshire; and 10 days in District of Columbia, giving owners an opportunity to move quickly to oppose forfeiture. ²  But other states set notice deadlines of 60 days or more, or they specify no deadline at all. CAFRA requires notice within 60 days for federal forfeitures but extends that to up to 90 days if the property was initially seized by a state or local agency and later turned over to the federal government for forfeiture. ³  There is no notice deadline for customs seizures.

Such lengthy delays, even if permitted by law, leave owners in the dark about what happened to their property, why it was seized, and what action they can take to get it back. They also extend the time people are deprived of their property without an opportunity to be heard in court. And, as already described, once notice is finally received, owners often have little time to respond. ⁴

Another problem with notice is delivery. For five years, a private attorney in Indiana acting as a forfeiture prosecutor—working in return for a percentage of proceeds from successfully forfeited property—simply failed to send the notices required by state law. ⁵  In Washington, the state auditor identified instances when notices were sent to the wrong address, as well as notices with missing or incomplete addresses, making it unlikely they were ever delivered. ⁶  A Massachusetts district attorney combined the problems of delay and delivery, waiting four years before providing notice to the owner of seized cash and a phone—and then only doing so by running ads in small type in the local newspaper informing the owner and 100 others in unrelated cases that they had 20 days to respond in civil court. ⁷

A deeper problem is that, when provided, forfeiture notices often fail to tell owners what they or their property are alleged to have done wrong, making it difficult, if not impossible, to know how to marshal facts and arguments to support a case to win their property back.

A clear and common example is the forms used for years by federal agencies such as the FBI. Figure 10 shows the notice the FBI provided Linda Martin when it unconstitutionally searched and seized the contents of hundreds of safe-deposit boxes, including hers, maintained by the company U.S. Private Vaults in Beverly Hills, California. ⁸  After the FBI seized the $40,200 Linda was saving for a house, it sent her this “Notice of Seizure of Property and Initiation of Administrative Forfeiture Proceedings,” and other box owners received similar forms.

Figure 10: Notice of seizure received by Linda Martin, first page

These notices fail to tell people like Linda the factual basis for the seizure of their property or the specific law under which the government intends to forfeit it. They merely state the date, the seizing agency, and the city where the property was seized. There is no specific information describing what, in the FBI’s view, made the property eligible to be seized, let alone forfeited forever. The “Forfeiture Authority” section cites a federal law that itself lists 35 distinct other sections of federal law that might justify the forfeiture. Even if Linda had looked up all 35 sections of the law, she would have been left guessing whether the FBI believed her money was connected to forgery, smuggling, computer fraud, or any number of other crimes—and if so, why. For these reasons, a federal district court in a different case resulting from the same FBI raid found that these “anemic” notices violate the Fifth Amendment’s right to due process. ⁹

Content-free notices are not unique to federal forfeitures. Officers in Indianapolis regularly visit the FedEx hub located there and seize the contents of parcels they deem suspicious. Often, their searches turn up cash, but no narcotics or other contraband. Nonetheless, Marion County prosecutors usually move to forfeit the currency. When they do, they merely allege the money was used, intended to be used, or constituted proceeds of a criminal violation of Indiana law—without saying which statute they believe was violated. Nor do they specify any facts that might support their allegation. Much as in the FBI notices, prosecutors regularly use rote language to claim the right to forfeit cash, not only at the FedEx hub but also elsewhere. ¹⁰

In yet another problem, forfeiture notices—even as they lack crucial information—can be so full of complicated legal language that they leave owners at a loss as to how to press for their rights. Again, a prime example is the federal notice given to Linda Martin and countless others. These notices give owners two options—aside from doing nothing and losing their property administratively. The first is called a “Petition for Remission,” a term unlikely to be familiar to most people without a law degree (and many people with one). It must be filed within 30 days. And though the notice does not clearly say so, selecting this option means the owner concedes the property can be forfeited but seeks a “pardon” at the government’s mercy. The second option is filing a claim, as Cristal Starling did, within 35 days, which enables the owner to exit the administrative forfeiture process and take the first step toward a judicial hearing.

Faced with just 30 days to act and with no information about what she did wrong, Linda filed a petition, thinking it the better option. By the language of the notice, it appeared a petition might result in the “return of” her savings, while a claim would merely be forwarded “to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for further proceedings.” ¹¹  In making this choice, she did not understand she was putting the decision solely in the FBI’s hands and effectively admitting her property’s guilt.

Linda is far from alone. In 2023, a federal judge in Indiana described similar notices provided by the DEA as “abstruse” and lamented that he had no choice but to reject an attempted claim by an owner whose attorney had mistakenly chosen the petition route, believing it would be “easier and cheaper.” ¹²  The judge himself found the DEA’s notice bewildering, writing, “while I now understand the distinction between the two options (after reading the relevant statutes and doing some research), I must admit that at first glance it was unclear to me how the two options differed.” ¹³  And he offered a list of a dozen cases in which owners, many of them represented by counsel, confused the two options. ¹⁴

State notices can also be “abstruse,” incomplete, or even incorrect. The Washington state auditor conducted a readability analysis of several agency notices and observed most were written several grade levels above what the general public might understand, pointing especially to unfamiliar legal terminology that went unexplained, including that “‘forfeit/forfeiture’ means the agency could keep the property.” ¹⁵  The state audit also observed that none of the notices it reviewed informed owners of two crucial rights: the right to transfer their case out of an administrative proceeding and into a court and the right to be reimbursed for attorney fees should they win. ¹⁶  Similarly, an audit in King County, where Seattle is located, found the standard notice used by the sheriff’s office “dense and inaccurate” in explaining owners’ rights. ¹⁷

Fighting forfeiture may not make economic sense

Taking the government to court will take time and likely money, and owners may conclude it is not worth it, especially for lower-value properties. And in fact, cash seizures, especially under state law, tend to be quite small—and data consistently indicate owners are less likely to fight for smaller sums.

Figure 11 shows the median currency forfeiture for 24 states with available data from 2019 to 2023. Across the states, the average is just $1,678. Put differently, on average in these states, half of currency forfeitures are worth less than $1,678. For amounts this small, navigating a complicated and unfamiliar legal process is unlikely to be worth the effort.

Figure 11: Median currency forfeiture values, 24 states

In nearly all states with data, half of currency forfeitures were worth less than the cost of hiring an attorney

Note: Arizona and Iowa medians are per case; medians for all other states are per asset; Kansas data are from July 2019–2023; South Dakota and West Virginia data are from 2020–2023; New Jersey data are from April 2022–2023; and Arizona data are from 2019–June 2023. Data for all other states are from 2019–2023.

And, in fact, in IJ’s sample of Indiana cases, owners are more likely to contest when more is at stake. The median cash seizure in contested cases was $3,264—more than twice the median value of $1,263 in uncontested cases, suggesting owners of smaller sums often made the rational calculation to walk away. ¹⁸

A similar pattern holds in five other states for which we have data, as shown in Figure 12. The median value of cases with a claim or an answer is consistently larger than the median value of uncontested cases. The same is true at the federal level, where the median value of currency forfeited administratively from 2019 to 2023 was $13,980, while the median value of currency forfeited through civil-judicial procedures was $25,945 (see Figure 13).

Figure 12: Median values of currency forfeitures with and without claims, six states

Among states with data, owners were more likely to file claims when larger sums were at stake

Note: Indiana data are from a random sample of cases and represent the median currency seizure value. New Jersey data are from April 2022–2023, while Minnesota data are from 2023. Data for other states are from 2019–2023.

Figure 13: Median values of DOJ currency forfeitures, civil-judicial vs. administrative, 2019–2023

The median value of currency forfeitures decided in civil court was almost double that of forfeitures decided administratively, meaning no claim was filed

Legal representation may not be economically viable, and successfully contesting forfeiture may be difficult without it

Even if owners would like to fight back, the small sums involved in most cash forfeitures mean it often will not be worthwhile to hire an attorney—assuming attorneys could be persuaded to take on such small cases. At an estimated $3,300 for a straightforward state forfeiture case, the cost of attorney representation will outstrip the value of many forfeitures or simply not make economic sense. ¹⁹

The story of Brian Moore Jr. illustrates the economic pitfalls of fighting for the return of seized property. In March 2021, Brian, a former U.S. Army member who had been honorably discharged, was on his way to Los Angeles to film a music video in pursuit of a new career in rap music. To pay for the video’s production, he was carrying $8,500 in cash, recently withdrawn from an account containing proceeds from the sale of a car left to him by his late grandfather. At the Atlanta airport, DEA agents stopped him, searched his bag, and seized his cash for forfeiture. ²⁰

Unlike many others, Brian fought back. He hired an attorney who helped him file claims, respond to lengthy and intrusive government discovery demands for information and documentation, and file court papers arguing both that the DEA agents had violated the Fourth Amendment and that the undisputed facts showed the $8,500 was not connected to any illegal activity. Fortunately for Brian, faced with these arguments, the government folded before a scheduled court hearing, agreeing to return the money. ²¹  

Brian won his $8,500 back. But the total cost in attorney fees for even a truncated case where the government gave up was almost twice the value of his cash: $15,200. ²²

Most people cannot afford to spend $15,200 to win back $8,500. For this exact reason, CAFRA and a few state laws entitle owners who win their property back to be reimbursed for attorney fees by the government. ²³  The idea is to make it financially viable for owners to contest forfeitures and for attorneys to take on owners’ cases. For example, under Brian’s agreement with his lawyers, he owed them roughly $2,800, while they expected to recover the remainder of their fee from the government under CAFRA’s attorney fee provision. ²⁴  

The federal government, however, has a history of opposing attorney fees, even when owners prevail, so CAFRA’s promise of being made whole is an uncertain one. ²⁵  In Brian’s case, though the government at first did not oppose fees (it merely contested the amount), the district court denied fees anyway. ²⁶  IJ appealed that ruling—pro bono—before the 11th Circuit, where the government took the position that Brian was not entitled to fees. ²⁷  In August 2025, the appellate court ruled Brian had substantially prevailed and was owed fees, though it declined to rule more broadly that owners automatically prevail when the case against their property is dropped. ²⁸  

Even worse than fighting to deny owners attorney fees, some states put owners on the hook for the government’s investigative and litigation expenses, including attorney fees, should they make a claim and lose. ²⁹

Given the low sums usually at stake and the high and uncertain costs of attorney representation, it is no surprise that owners frequently decide not to contest—or try going it alone and contesting without an attorney.

Data from Arizona and Oregon indicate just 6% and 7% of contested forfeiture actions involved owners represented by attorneys, and cases with attorneys typically involved larger sums. In both states, the median value of currency in contested cases without an attorney was less than the estimated $3,300 cost of hiring an attorney, while in cases with an attorney it was $24,521 (Arizona) and $5,283 (Oregon). In the study of 16 California counties over seven years, an average of just 14% of claimants had attorneys, while court watchers in Cook County, Illinois, observed only 28% of claimants did. ³⁰  Publicly available federal data do not indicate how often owners have lawyers, but data IJ obtained about Internal Revenue Service forfeitures indicate most do not: At most 15% of seized assets in the data are associated with an attorney (see “Beyond Taxes: The IRS and Civil Forfeiture”).

Without legal representation, successfully running the procedural gauntlet to a judicial hearing, let alone securing the return of seized property, will be difficult for many owners. Cristal Starling’s efforts would have been for naught but for pro bono help on appeal. ³¹  Beverly Miller did not achieve even the limited success of a moral victory until she hired an attorney. Without legal help, Linda Martin unknowingly gave up her right to contest the forfeiture of her savings—though, as the federal judge in Indiana observed, multiple attorneys have made precisely the same mistake.

Though the procedures and paperwork required for civil litigation may be familiar to many lawyers, ordinary people are unlikely to know how to do things like properly file an answer in court, enter an appearance, or respond to queries from the government called “interrogatories.” Even something as seemingly simple as filing an “executed and sworn” claim can stop owners in their tracks. An earlier IJ study of DOJ data found that more than 20% of claims made for seized property between 1997 and 2015 were deemed “deficient” by the government, and by far the most common reason, accounting for 68% of deficient claims, was that the claim “was not executed and sworn to by the claimant.” ³²

The Cook County court watchers observed 230 civil forfeiture cases and repeatedly saw claimants without lawyers who were confused by even the basics of the court process, such as “knowing their case number, properly filling out paperwork, and completing a Hardship Motion” to seek temporary return of their property. They often did not know they could request fee waivers, let alone how to do so. ³³  More fundamentally, claimants often had no idea why they were in court in the first place: “More often, property owners would come in not knowing why they were in court if someone else committed the crime, why they could not get their property back if their criminal case was already settled, or why their property was seized at all.” ³⁴

Owners may live far away from the jurisdiction where their property was seized

Challenges like finding or affording a lawyer, navigating the process without one, or even simply showing up in court will be heightened for owners whose property was seized somewhere they do not live. And this problem is not uncommon. More than 78% of seizures on interstate highways in Kansas—and more than a fifth of all seizures in the state—were from out-of-state residents. Unsurprisingly, nearly 80% of those ended in a default judgment of forfeiture.

People whose property was seized at the FedEx hub in Indianapolis faced the same problem. In just two years, the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office sued to forfeit currency that happened to pass through Indiana from one non-Indiana state to another at least 130 times. ³⁵  Each of these owners was forced to litigate in a jurisdiction hundreds or thousands of miles away or permanently lose their money.

In Seward County, Nebraska, nearly all civil forfeitures initiated on I-80 began with a stop of an out-of-state driver, according to a news investigation. ³⁶  Similar examples abound: A Minnesota man carrying cash intended to pay for his mother’s funeral had it seized at a traffic stop in Wisconsin. ³⁷  New Mexico businessmen had their money seized as they passed through Oklahoma. ³⁸  

Similar to highway stops of out-of-state drivers, airport seizures often result in owners being forced to litigate far from home: Kermit Warren’s cash was seized and pursued for forfeiture in Ohio, but he lives in New Orleans. ³⁹  Jerry Johnson of Charlotte, North Carolina, had his cash seized at the Phoenix airport. ⁴⁰  Rebecca Brown lives in the Boston area, but her family’s money was seized at the Pittsburgh airport. Stacy Esposito (formerly Jones-Nasr) had her money seized at the Wilmington International Airport in North Carolina on her way home to Tampa, Florida. Matt Berger lives in San Diego, but agents seized his money in Charlotte. ⁴¹