Indiana earns a D for its civil forfeiture laws
Standard of Proof
Low bar to forfeit: Prosecutors must prove by preponderance of the evidence that property is connected to a crime.
Innocent Owner Burden
Limited protections for the innocent: Generally, third-party owners must prove their own innocence to recover seized property, but the government bears the burden in cases involving vehicles or recording equipment allegedly used in a sex crime.
Financial Incentive
Large profit incentive: Up to 93% of forfeiture proceeds go to law enforcement.
The letter grade reflects Indiana’s forfeiture laws as of May 7, 2025. 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.
Note: Prosecutors need only meet their standard of proof—and owners can only prove their innocence—if owners make it to a judicial hearing. See flow chart.
Recent Reforms
Recommendations
What happens after personal property is seized in Indiana?
*If you make a written demand for the return of your property, prosecutors have 21 days from the demand to file the complaint.
For research methods and limitations, see “How We Documented Civil Forfeiture Processes From Seizure to Hearing.”
State and Federal Forfeiture Proceeds, 2000–2023
At least $162 million in state and federal forfeiture revenue
| Year | Indiana Forfeiture Revenues | Dept. of Justice Equitable Sharing Proceeds | Treasury Equitable Sharing Proceeds | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | Unknown | $2,640,559 | $237,000 | $2,877,559 |
| 2001 | Unknown | $2,102,094 | $210,000 | $2,312,094 |
| 2002 | Unknown | $2,224,005 | $235,000 | $2,459,005 |
| 2003 | Unknown | $2,140,236 | $265,000 | $2,405,236 |
| 2004 | Unknown | $2,249,053 | $283,000 | $2,532,053 |
| 2005 | Unknown | $2,563,570 | $870,000 | $3,433,570 |
| 2006 | Unknown | $2,781,017 | $373,000 | $3,154,017 |
| 2007 | Unknown | $2,736,058 | $291,000 | $3,027,058 |
| 2008 | Unknown | $4,322,001 | $579,000 | $4,901,001 |
| 2009 | Unknown | $4,752,287 | $1,240,000 | $5,992,287 |
| 2010 | Unknown | $2,852,393 | $705,000 | $3,557,393 |
| 2011 | Unknown | $5,063,633 | $334,000 | $5,397,633 |
| 2012 | Unknown | $10,872,414 | $1,327,000 | $12,199,414 |
| 2013 | Unknown | $3,666,595 | $135,000 | $3,801,595 |
| 2014 | Unknown | $6,614,721 | $2,536,000 | $9,150,721 |
| 2015 | Unknown | $5,230,729 | $971,000 | $6,201,729 |
| 2016 | $1,826,151 | $6,129,044 | $2,815,000 | $10,770,195 |
| 2017 | $3,276,702 | $7,055,310 | $847,000 | $11,179,012 |
| 2018 | $6,111,734 | $3,488,936 | $1,931,000 | $11,531,670 |
| 2019 | $3,314,596 | $3,340,203 | $942,000 | $7,596,799 |
| 2020 | $3,025,300 | $4,280,229 | $5,776,000 | $13,081,529 |
| 2021 | $5,766,694 | $2,423,156 | $1,828,000 | $10,017,850 |
| 2022 | $4,913,201 | $6,081,967 | $948,000 | $11,943,168 |
| 2023 | $5,508,298 | $6,662,005 | $478,000 | $12,648,303 |
| Totals | $33,742,676 | $102,272,215 | $26,156,000 | $162,170,891 |
All revenue figures include both civil and criminal forfeitures. Revenues are not adjusted for inflation.
Federal Equitable Sharing
Indiana does not prevent state and local law enforcement agencies from using the federal equitable sharing program to circumvent state forfeiture law. Since 2000, Indiana agencies have generated more than $128 million in equitable sharing proceeds from the departments of Justice and the Treasury. And on average from 2019 to 2023, 115 Indiana agencies, or an estimated 26% of all law enforcement agencies in the state, were certified for the program.
Forfeitures Under Indiana Law: Key Facts
Median Value
UNKNOWN
Indiana does not report property-level data necessary to calculate median forfeiture value.
Property Types
UNKNOWN
Indiana property type data were not used for this report.
Proceeding Types
UNKNOWN
Indiana does not report whether forfeitures are processed under civil or criminal forfeiture law.
Additional Findings
UNKNOWN
Many of Indiana’s forfeiture cases are not officially reported, and the data from those that are officially reported are frequently unreliable.
Forfeiture Transparency and Accountability Report Card
Tracking Seized Property
CStatewide Forfeiture Reports
CPenalties for Failure to File a Report
F*Accounting for Forfeiture Fund Spending
FAccessibility of Forfeiture Records
BFinancial Audits of Forfeiture Accounts
F*Agencies must file even when they have nothing to report.
For full transparency and accountability grades, visit ij.org/TransparencyReportCards.
Data Notes
Forfeiture case data were obtained via public records requests to the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council. Revenues represent the value of forfeited currency and proceeds of forfeited property sold for all cases with final dispositions in a fiscal year. Based on a separate analysis, there appear to be substantial deficiencies in Indiana’s reported forfeiture data. For further details, see Warren, D. (2025). Bad data: How Indiana’s flawed forfeiture reporting misinforms Hoosiers. Institute for Justice. https://ij.org/report/bad-data/. Equitable sharing data are from DOJ’s and Treasury’s annual forfeiture reports. Due to differences in reporting and accounting practices, figures may not match aggregate numbers produced by the state or cover the same 12-month period as the federal data. The number of certified agencies was computed using the approved Equitable Sharing Agreement and Certification requests submitted by police, sheriff, and other local law enforcement agencies. The percentage of certified agencies was computed using that number and the total number of agencies reported in the 2018 Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies.
Legal Sources
Standard of proof: Preponderance of the evidence.
Ind. Code § 34-24-1-4(a); see also Serrano v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1139, 1143–44 (Ind. 2011) (requiring state to prove a close “nexus” between vehicle and drugs); Lipscomb v. State, 857 N.E.2d 424, 428 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (requiring state to show connection between money and drugs).
Innocent owner burden: Depends on the property. Generally, the owner bears the burden of proof. But for vehicles or equipment allegedly involved in the recording of a sex crime, the government bears the burden.
Ind. Code §§ 34-24-1-1(a)(10), (b), (c), (e), 34-24-1-4(a).
Financial incentive: Up to 93%, notwithstanding a state constitutional provision requiring that “all forfeitures” be paid into the Common School Fund.
Ind. Code §§ 34-24-1-6, 34-24-1-4(c)–(d); compare Ind. Const. art. 8, § 2, with Horner v. Curry, 125 N.E.3d 584, 597–607 (Ind. 2019).
Process: Ind. Code §§ 34-24-1-1 et seq. (forfeiture procedure); Ind. R. Trial P. 4, 41 (service of complaint); Geiger & Peters, Inc. v. Am. Fletcher Nat. Bank & Tr. Co., 428 N.E.2d 1279 (Ind. 1981) (failure to serve is considered failure to prosecute and therefore grounds for dismissal).