People should not lose their property without due process. But a new government audit shows widespread disregard for civil rights when the King County Sheriff’s Office seizes and permanently keeps cash, cars, and other valuables.
Many property owners lose their belongings without an arrest, conviction, or hearing before a neutral judge. Police and prosecutors dodge due process using civil forfeiture, a law enforcement maneuver that leaves property owners with no right to counsel or guarantee of trial.
In the rare cases that goes to court, the government merely has to link property to wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence, a standard of proof far below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold needed for a criminal conviction.
Rather than contest the forfeiture in court, many property owners opt for an administrative resolution to save money. Others walk away and lose by default. “Almost all claims are apparently settled prior to a hearing or trial,” the audit finds, which means the county does not have to prove anything by any standard.
Once a civil forfeiture case ends, Washington allows state and local agencies to keep 90% of the proceeds for themselves. The result is a perverse incentive to police for profit. King County Auditor Kymber Waltmunson calls the scheme a “high-dollar practice.”
This is an understatement. Since 2017, the King County Sheriff’s Office has forfeited over $9 million in cash, 41 houses, and 120 cars. Statewide, Washington agencies forfeited more than $232 million during the 20 years from 2000 to 2019.
The full scope of the abuse in King County is hard to gauge. Concerned citizens have no idea, and neither does the sheriff. The audit describes outdated tracking methods that leave everyone in the dark.
King County keeps records in paper folders with key information missing, making meaningful analysis difficult. The state never asks for a report, anyway. Washington has no central oversight body, collects no expenditure data, and publishes no annual civil forfeiture summary.
Money goes into the system. Then what happens is anyone’s guess.
“The Sheriff’s Office could not readily determine the total number of cases, the value of assets seized, how many cases were challenged, how many cases were removed to court, how many cases had associated criminal convictions, or how many assets were ultimately returned to their owners or forfeited to the Sheriff’s Office,” the audit finds.
Other problems exist. The report cites lack of independent hearings and confusing notices that incorrectly imply a presumption of guilt. “Under Washington state law, it is the Sheriff’s Office that must prove the property should be forfeited,” the audit states.
Despite this criticism, the audit gives the King County Sheriff’s Office credit for taking a “restrained approach” to civil forfeiture. Unlike many agencies, which use traffic stops as a pretext to grab cash, King County limits itself to “high-level” drug cases.
This misses the point. Even when a conviction occurs—something not guaranteed—civil forfeiture happens separately. This means property owners linked to wrongdoing must divide their attention between criminal and civil cases, which can overlap.
No kinder, gentler approach to civil forfeiture exists. It always leads to due process violations.
The solution is to end civil forfeiture and replace it with criminal forfeiture, a process that allows the government to seize and keep property as part of criminal proceedings.
New Mexico took this step in 2015 following litigation from our public interest law firm, the Institute for Justice. Alarmists predicted crime would spike. But a 2024 study shows no negative effects.
Crime should not pay. But the government goes too far when it tramples due process by punishing innocent people as though they are guilty.
Dan Alban is a senior attorney and co-director of the National Initiative to End Forfeiture Abuse at the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Va. Daryl James is an Institute for Justice writer.
