Michigan earns a D- for its civil forfeiture laws
Standard of Proof
Higher bar to forfeit in limited cases: Weak conviction provision falls short of criminal forfeiture. It applies only if an owner contests forfeiture, putting the burden on owners to engage in a costly legal battle and making it easy for the government to forfeit without a conviction. It does not require conviction of the owner, only of a “defendant,” and does not apply to cash over $50,000. Once the conviction provision is satisfied, property must be linked to a drug crime by clear and convincing evidence or to another crime by preponderance of the evidence.
Innocent Owner Burden
Limited protections for the innocent: Generally, the government must prove third-party owners knew about criminal activity connected to their property, but the owner bears the burden in drug cases involving property valued above $50,000.
Financial Incentive
Large profit incentive: In drug cases, 100% of forfeiture proceeds go to law enforcement; 75% in all other cases.
The letter grade reflects Michigan’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 Michigan?*
Under Michigan law, the government’s and owners’ deadlines leading to a judicial hearing add up to 111 days, but deadlines are not specified for providing notice, filing the complaint, or the hearing itself and the deadline for serving the complaint can be extended; any criminal proceedings may also add to the wait. While you wait, the government has your property, and you have no way to seek its return.
*Michigan has multiple forfeiture statutes. The drug forfeiture statute is described here.
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 $506 million in state and federal forfeiture revenue
| Year | Michigan Forfeiture Revenues | Dept. of Justice Equitable Sharing Proceeds | Treasury Equitable Sharing Proceeds | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | Unknown | $4,514,721 | $518,000 | $5,032,721 |
| 2001 | Unknown | $7,536,367 | $1,271,000 | $8,807,367 |
| 2002 | Unknown | $4,792,256 | $1,060,000 | $5,852,256 |
| 2003 | Unknown | $5,414,143 | $565,000 | $5,979,143 |
| 2004 | Unknown | $4,616,839 | $1,004,000 | $5,620,839 |
| 2005 | $21,422,468 | $13,494,514 | $1,251,000 | $36,167,982 |
| 2006 | $19,461,148 | $9,645,997 | $2,530,000 | $31,637,145 |
| 2007 | $23,684,836 | $8,551,255 | $899,000 | $33,135,091 |
| 2008 | $21,712,926 | $13,272,447 | $1,234,000 | $36,219,373 |
| 2009 | $28,851,170 | $10,487,427 | $4,926,000 | $44,264,597 |
| 2010 | $19,073,067 | $7,438,258 | $1,660,000 | $28,171,325 |
| 2011 | $20,565,215 | $12,839,294 | $1,569,000 | $34,973,509 |
| 2012 | $16,068,345 | $17,114,435 | $451,000 | $33,633,780 |
| 2013 | $15,420,373 | $7,518,796 | $687,000 | $23,626,169 |
| 2014 | $15,957,584 | $8,101,026 | $2,066,000 | $26,124,610 |
| 2015 | $23,087,035 | $4,924,623 | $1,307,000 | $29,318,658 |
| 2016 | $8,119,327 | $3,344,864 | $1,344,000 | $12,808,191 |
| 2017 | $8,293,100 | $4,614,436 | $333,000 | $13,240,536 |
| 2018 | $10,449,038 | $8,480,461 | $375,000 | $19,304,499 |
| 2019 | $6,634,609 | $5,554,514 | $72,000 | $12,261,123 |
| 2020 | $4,961,573 | $6,169,646 | $308,000 | $11,439,219 |
| 2021 | $6,202,724 | $2,678,528 | $1,491,000 | $10,372,252 |
| 2022 | $7,754,713 | $7,410,309 | $1,939,000 | $17,104,022 |
| 2023 | $6,944,459 | $13,980,633 | $164,000 | $21,089,092 |
| Totals | $284,663,710 | $192,495,789 | $29,024,000 | $506,183,499 |
All revenue figures include both civil and criminal forfeitures. Revenues are not adjusted for inflation.
Federal Equitable Sharing
Michigan does not prevent state and local law enforcement agencies from using the federal equitable sharing program to circumvent state forfeiture law. Since 2000, Michigan agencies have generated nearly $222 million in equitable sharing proceeds from the departments of Justice and the Treasury. And on average from 2019 to 2023, more than 123 Michigan agencies, or an estimated 23% of all law enforcement agencies in the state, were certified for the program.
Forfeitures Under Michigan Law: Key Facts
Median Value
$557
From 2019 to 2023, half of Michigan’s currency forfeitures were worth less than $557.
Property Types
From 2019 to 2023, 52% of Michigan’s forfeitures were of currency.
Claims
From 2019 to 2023, less than one-quarter of forfeitures were contested via a claim.
Convictions
From 2019 to 2023, nearly 60% of Michigan’s forfeitures occurred without a reported criminal conviction.
Forfeiture Transparency and Accountability Report Card
Tracking Seized Property
B-Statewide Forfeiture Reports
BPenalties for Failure to File a Report
D*Accounting for Forfeiture Fund Spending
FAccessibility of Forfeiture Records
AFinancial Audits of Forfeiture Accounts
B*Agencies must file even when they have nothing to report.
For full transparency and accountability grades, visit ij.org/TransparencyReportCards.
Data Notes
Agency forfeiture records with property-level data were obtained via public records requests to the Michigan State Police. Revenues for 2016–2023 represent the value of forfeited property received by agencies in a calendar year, while those for 2005–2014 represent proceeds received by agencies in a fiscal year. Revenues for 2015 represent one or the other depending on the agency. Median and property-type figures are based on calendar year. 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: Weak conviction provision does not require conviction of an owner, but only of a “defendant”—and only for contested forfeitures of property worth less than $50,000. After the conviction provision is satisfied, property must be linked to drug crimes by clear and convincing evidence and to other crimes by a preponderance of the evidence.
Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 333.7521a(1)–(2), (6), 600.4707(6).
Innocent owner burden: Depends on the property. Generally, the government bears the burden of proof. But for drug forfeitures of property valued over $50,000, the owner bears the burden.
Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 333.7523a(2)(b) (burden on government in drug forfeitures worth $50,000 or less), 600.4707(6)(b) (burden on government in non-drug forfeitures); see id. §§ 333.7521a(6), .7523a(1) (procedure placing burden on government does not apply in drug forfeitures of property worth more than $50,000); see also id. §§ 333.7521(1)(d)(ii), (f), 333.7531(1) (burden on owner in drug forfeitures worth more than $50,000).
Financial incentive: 100% in drug forfeitures; 75% in other forfeitures.
Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 333.7524(1)(b)(ii), 600.4708(1)(f).
Process: Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 333.7521 et seq. (forfeiture procedure); Mich. Ct. R. 2.102 (service of complaint); Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5809(2) (statute of limitations).