Slide Number 1
Eight police agencies in this audit
What is civil asset forfeiture?
Why we did this audit
Audit questions
Key audit results
Cash was most common type of property police agencies seized
More than half of all forfeiture cases involved property worth less than $2,000
Various factors may contribute to low value property seizures
Auditors predicted race and ethnicity of people who had property seized
Some demographic groups faced civil asset forfeiture at much higher rates
Some demographic groups faced civil asset forfeiture at much higher rates
Most people involved in a forfeiture were not convicted of a related crime
Criminal convictions related to forfeitures varied significantly by agency
State law gives police broad authority, few protections to property owners
Washington’s low standard of evidence makes it easier for police to prevail
Police made most forfeiture decisions, an apparent conflict of interest
Some states require decisions to be made independent of police agencies
Allowing police to retain proceeds raises financial incentive concerns
Agencies followed state requirements around procedural due process
Few agencies implemented leading practices to protect property ownersÂ
State law does not require police to collect and report key data
Recommendations
Contact Information
Questions
