Missouri earns a B+ for its civil forfeiture laws
Standard of Proof
Higher bar to forfeit: Strong conviction provision requires conviction of the owner, even if forfeiture is uncontested. Once there is a conviction, property must be linked to the crime by preponderance of the evidence.
Innocent Owner Burden
Poor protections for the innocent: Third-party owners must prove their own innocence to recover seized property.
Financial Incentive
No profit incentive: All forfeiture proceeds go to fund schools.
The letter grade reflects Missouri’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 Missouri?
Under Missouri’s strong conviction requirement, property can be forfeited only if an owner is convicted. While you wait, the government has your property, but you can try to get it back while the case continues by posting a bond equal to the property’s value.
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 $225 million in state and federal forfeiture revenue
| Year | Missouri Forfeiture Revenues | Dept. of Justice Equitable Sharing Proceeds | Treasury Equitable Sharing Proceeds | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | $115,156 | $8,179,698 | $274,000 | $8,568,854 |
| 2001 | $224,721 | $4,979,750 | $464,000 | $5,668,471 |
| 2002 | $462,510 | $4,079,649 | $219,000 | $4,761,159 |
| 2003 | $420,680 | $4,781,175 | $207,000 | $5,408,855 |
| 2004 | $90,546 | $6,024,911 | $169,000 | $6,284,457 |
| 2005 | $142,450 | $8,546,529 | $32,000 | $8,720,979 |
| 2006 | $148,446 | $9,479,687 | $229,000 | $9,857,133 |
| 2007 | $148,922 | $10,667,509 | $118,000 | $10,934,431 |
| 2008 | $117,064 | $10,461,755 | $55,000 | $10,633,819 |
| 2009 | $30,673 | $19,504,675 | $224,000 | $19,759,348 |
| 2010 | $51,948 | $13,604,657 | $1,459,000 | $15,115,605 |
| 2011 | $317,178 | $11,364,666 | $1,677,000 | $13,358,844 |
| 2012 | $167,736 | $10,732,462 | $748,000 | $11,648,198 |
| 2013 | $232,440 | $7,773,383 | $5,255,000 | $13,260,823 |
| 2014 | $255,712 | $6,377,879 | $609,000 | $7,242,591 |
| 2015 | $125,466 | $7,841,569 | $558,000 | $8,525,035 |
| 2016 | $194,134 | $6,464,769 | $2,010,000 | $8,668,903 |
| 2017 | $360,726 | $5,587,862 | $430,000 | $6,378,588 |
| 2018 | $201,830 | $8,621,102 | $268,000 | $9,090,932 |
| 2019 | $269,475 | $6,102,289 | $1,417,000 | $7,788,764 |
| 2020 | $130,922 | $6,232,514 | $3,042,000 | $9,405,436 |
| 2021 | $180,993 | $10,524,972 | $1,512,000 | $12,217,965 |
| 2022 | $160,128 | $3,572,547 | $834,000 | $4,566,675 |
| 2023 | $213,551 | $5,842,043 | $1,680,000 | $7,735,594 |
| Totals | $4,763,407 | $197,348,052 | $23,490,000 | $225,601,459 |
All revenue figures include both civil and criminal forfeitures. Revenues are not adjusted for inflation.
Federal Equitable Sharing
Missouri places modest limits on state and local law enforcement’s ability to use the federal equitable sharing program to circumvent state forfeiture law. Since 2000, Missouri agencies have generated nearly $221 million in equitable sharing proceeds from the departments of Justice and the Treasury. And on average from 2019 to 2023, more than 169 Missouri agencies, or an estimated 32% of all law enforcement agencies in the state, were certified for the program.
Forfeitures Under Missouri Law: Key Facts
Median Value
$1,942
From 2019 to 2023, half of Missouri’s currency forfeitures were worth less than $1,942.
Property Types
From 2019 to 2023, nearly 90% of Missouri’s forfeitures were solely of currency.
Proceeding Types
UNKNOWN
Missouri does not report whether forfeitures are processed under civil or criminal forfeiture law.
Additional Findings
UNKNOWN
Most property was still winding its way through the forfeiture process at the time of reporting, resulting in an incomplete picture of forfeiture activity in the state.
Forfeiture Transparency and Accountability Report Card
Tracking Seized Property
CStatewide Forfeiture Reports
APenalties for Failure to File a Report
CAccounting for Forfeiture Fund Spending
N/A †Accessibility of Forfeiture Records
AFinancial Audits of Forfeiture Accounts
N/A ††These grades are not applicable as Missouri does not permit law enforcement agencies to spend state forfeiture revenue.
For full transparency and accountability grades, visit ij.org/TransparencyReportCards.
Data Notes
Forfeiture case data were obtained from the state auditor via public records requests and download from its website. All figures are in calendar years. Revenues for 2019–2023 represent the value of forfeited currency and property reported in a calendar year. Because final disposition was pending for roughly two-thirds of properties, revenues are likely substantially underestimated. Revenues for earlier years represent forfeited currency and proceeds of forfeited property seized and transferred to the state in the same 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: Strong conviction provision requires an owner’s conviction, even when forfeiture is uncontested. Once there is a conviction, property must be linked to the crime by a preponderance of the evidence.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 513.607(1)–(2) (forfeiture is “a civil procedure,” and civil cases in Missouri are subject to the preponderance standard); id. § 513.645(6); City of Springfield v. Gee, 149 S.W.3d 609, 615–16 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004); see also Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 936 S.W.2d 104, 110 (Mo. 1996).
Innocent owner burden: Owner.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 513.615; State v. Beaird, 914 S.W.2d 374, 378 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996); State v. 1973 Fleetwood Mobile Home, 802 S.W.2d 582, 584 & n.3 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).
Financial incentive: No financial incentive. All forfeiture proceeds go to fund schools.
Mo. Const. art. IX, § 7; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 513.623.
Process: Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 513.600 et seq. (forfeiture procedure); Mo. R. Civ. P. 54.21 (service of complaint).