Reform unfair property seizure and forfeiture laws

A state audit of Washington law enforcement agencies found that when it comes to the civil seizure and forfeiture of property during a crime investigation, the rules are skewed to help enrich police departments, which creates a conflict of interest. Also the process lacks transparency for those who have had their property seized.

The Legislature should enact reforms, and lawmakers will likely get another chance to do so next year.

Prompted by similar audits done in Minnesota, the Washington Office of State Auditor reviewed three years of seizures and forfeitures at 100 law enforcement agencies. 

Under current state laws, as in many states, civil forfeiture can deprive people of their property without due process. Even when there is due process, there still remain potential conflicts of interest because the same police departments that seized the property also decide the outcome of the seizure cases.

Civil asset forfeiture is government’s legal tool to seize property believed to have been used in a crime, such as firearms, drugs, vehicles, real estate or cash. Property can be seized without an arrest, a charge or a conviction. Even if the owner is eventually cleared, it can be difficult to get the property back.

In fact, the audit showed that only 25% of those whose property was forfeited between January 2020 and December 2022 were convicted of a crime.

During that time, more than 100 law enforcement agencies in Washington received $40 million from local, state and federal forfeitures, mostly from cash, vehicles and equipment. Since the state gets 10% of the proceeds from any sales of property, some state officials have been reticent to change the rules, despite bipartisan support nationally to do so.

Spurred by the Institute for Justice, Rep. Roger Goodman, D-Kirkland, has for years pushed for changes in civil asset seizure processes. He wants more uniformity statewide. Currently, agencies have different rules for seizures for drug cases, or sex trafficking cases or for fish-and-wildlife violations. Secondly, those whose property has been seized — especially without being charged — need more transparency so they can learn how to file an appeal to get back their property.

The state Legislature had a chance to reform the process during this year’s session, but House Bill 1385 failed to pass the House. Had it passed, it would have given property owners more time to reclaim their property, established uniform reporting requirements for all seizing agencies and required the state treasurer to collect information on each case and make it available online.

The audit also found racial disparities in seizures and forfeitures in five jurisdictions.

What to do about the civil seizure and forfeitures process has been discussed for more than 20 years in Washington. The state audit makes a case that it’s time to act. Lawmakers and law enforcement officials should be ready to consider reforms in the next legislative session.