Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws and Equitable Sharing Activity by the Police

Abstract

Research Summary For several decades, critics have argued that civil forfeiture laws create incentives for law enforcement to increase departmental revenue by “policing for profit.” By using data on federal equitable sharing payments to nearly 600 local law enforcement agencies between 2000 and 2012, we examine the relationship between the characteristics of state forfeiture laws and equitable sharing payments to local agencies. Our results indicate that agencies in states with state laws that are more restrictive or less rewarding to police collect more in federal equitable sharing. This finding supports the critics’ argument that police behavior in regard to forfeiture activities is influenced by the financial rewards and burdens involved. Policy Implications Our results reveal that the findings of investigative journalism and case study research, that is, that police forfeiture activities are influenced by financial rewards, may be more generalizable to law enforcement than previously thought. Despite recent state‐level reforms, federal equitable sharing and most state forfeiture laws provide limited due process protections and have minimal accountability or reporting requirements. Concerns about the impact of civil forfeiture practices on perceptions of procedural justice and police legitimacy are discussed, and possible policy reforms are reviewed.

Forfeiture Policy in the United States

“…This brings us back to civil forfeiture. The findings and conclusions of Jefferson Holcomb, Marian Williams, William Hicks, Tomislav Kovandzic, and Michele Bisaccia Meitl (, this issue) should not come as any surprise. Economists might argue that the article was unnecessary, as a starting point for economic analysis is the assumption that parties act in their own self‐interest.…”

“…So this new article by Holcomb et al. () is welcome as it may overcome some of the lingering skepticism over whether, and to what degree, civil forfeiture is a problem for us.…”

“…As demonstrated by Holcomb et al. (), one of the workarounds is to resort to federal procedure and equitable sharing to keep the money flowing.…”

“…In the meantime, advocacy is important, as is empirical research, such as Holcomb et al.’s () article, in which they document the problems and call attention to the issues. As powerful as the pro‐forfeiture “market” forces are, the public outcry will need to be particularly strong to counter them, as well as to bring real solutions.…”

Documented Abuses and Uncertain Benefits of Civil Asset Forfeiture

“…Jefferson Holcomb, Marian Williams, William Hicks, Tomislav Kovandzic, and Michele Bisaccia Meitl (, this issue) and Pimentel () indicate that it is the policing for profit that generates most of the scholarly, legal, and media criticism of civil asset forfeiture. They point out that the federal government's practice of “equitable sharing” allows state and local police agencies to have various federal agencies “adopt” cases for a service fee of 20% of the take.…”