Texas 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
Poor protections for the innocent: Third-party owners must prove their own innocence to recover seized property.
Financial Incentive
Large profit incentive: Up to 70% of forfeiture proceeds go to law enforcement in cases where property is forfeited by default; up to 100% where forfeiture is contested.
The letter grade reflects Texas’ 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 Texas?
Under Texas law, prosecutors’ and owners’ deadlines leading to a judicial hearing add up to 50 days, but the wait may be longer as there are no deadlines for serving the complaint or for the hearing itself. 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 appraised 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 $1.8 billion in state and federal forfeiture revenue
| Year | Texas Forfeiture Revenues | Dept. of Justice Equitable Sharing Proceeds | Treasury Equitable Sharing Proceeds | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | Unknown | $22,576,969 | $8,944,000 | $31,520,969 |
| 2001 | $18,983,273 | $19,668,285 | $2,679,000 | $41,330,558 |
| 2002 | $7,294,323 | $14,419,530 | $2,284,000 | $23,997,853 |
| 2003 | $43,416,158 | $13,659,504 | $5,524,000 | $62,599,662 |
| 2004 | $40,798,353 | $19,386,146 | $10,391,000 | $70,575,499 |
| 2005 | $29,491,437 | $17,123,807 | $11,114,000 | $57,729,244 |
| 2006 | $37,588,776 | $28,859,716 | $11,290,000 | $77,738,492 |
| 2007 | $49,414,291 | $36,200,059 | $14,434,000 | $100,048,350 |
| 2008 | $56,615,941 | $29,552,435 | $12,376,000 | $98,544,376 |
| 2009 | $56,100,475 | $24,414,415 | $12,903,000 | $93,417,890 |
| 2010 | $41,094,790 | $40,515,365 | $23,201,000 | $104,811,155 |
| 2011 | $50,748,640 | $30,401,129 | $14,518,000 | $95,667,769 |
| 2012 | $32,103,359 | $31,520,522 | $35,193,000 | $98,816,881 |
| 2013 | $62,926,509 | $34,960,588 | $5,084,000 | $102,971,097 |
| 2014 | $50,353,075 | $26,594,306 | $10,199,000 | $87,146,381 |
| 2015 | $54,693,932 | $28,681,997 | $17,739,000 | $101,114,929 |
| 2016 | $50,693,121 | $18,435,232 | $8,673,000 | $77,801,353 |
| 2017 | $49,564,600 | $28,814,312 | $5,517,000 | $83,895,912 |
| 2018 | $49,717,176 | $31,590,213 | $9,142,000 | $90,449,389 |
| 2019 | $44,879,691 | $18,573,207 | $7,677,000 | $71,129,898 |
| 2020 | $41,129,899 | $17,859,067 | $18,348,000 | $77,336,966 |
| 2021 | $34,913,254 | $7,418,301 | $8,909,000 | $51,240,555 |
| 2022 | $46,110,941 | $20,211,238 | $17,241,000 | $83,563,179 |
| 2023 | $39,556,440 | $27,765,554 | $6,317,000 | $73,638,994 |
| Totals | $988,188,454 | $589,201,897 | $279,697,000 | $1,857,087,351 |
All revenue figures include both civil and criminal forfeitures. Revenues are not adjusted for inflation.
Federal Equitable Sharing
Texas does not prevent state and local law enforcement agencies from using the federal equitable sharing program to circumvent state forfeiture law. Since 2000, Texas agencies have generated nearly $869 million in equitable sharing proceeds from the departments of Justice and the Treasury. And on average from 2019 to 2023, 465 Texas agencies, or an estimated 26% of all law enforcement agencies in the state, were certified for the program.
Forfeitures Under Texas Law: Key Facts
Median Value
UNKNOWN
Texas does not report property-level data necessary to calculate median forfeiture value.
Property Types
UNKNOWN
Texas property type data were not used for this report.
Proceeding Types
UNKNOWN
Texas does not report whether forfeitures are processed under civil or criminal forfeiture law.
Additional Findings
UNKNOWN
Agencies do not provide detailed data on seized or forfeited property, resulting in limited transparency into forfeiture activity in the state.
Forfeiture Transparency and Accountability Report Card
Tracking Seized Property
DStatewide Forfeiture Reports
DPenalties for Failure to File a Report
C*Accounting for Forfeiture Fund Spending
AAccessibility of Forfeiture Records
AFinancial Audits of Forfeiture Accounts
A*Agencies must file even when they have nothing to report.
For full transparency and accountability grades, visit ij.org/TransparencyReportCards.
Data Notes
Statewide forfeiture data were obtained via public records requests to the state attorney general. Revenues represent proceeds of forfeited currency and property sold that were received by agencies in their respective fiscal years. Revenues prior to 2008 include interest. 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.
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 59.05(b).
Innocent owner burden: Owner.
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 59.02(c), (h)(1).
Financial incentive: Up to 70% in cases where a default judgment is entered; up to 100% in contested cases.
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 59.06(c), (c-3); see also Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. GA-0122, 2003 WL 22754257, at *2 (Nov. 18, 2003) (noting 70-30 split between district attorney and Department of Public Safety).
Process: Tex. Code Crim. Prac. Ann. art. 59.01 et seq. (forfeiture procedure); Tex. R. Civ. P. 99 (time to answer).