The worst states for civil forfeiture laws are Massachusetts and North Dakota, where law enforcement can keep up to 100 percent of what it seizes and the evidence required to take property is the lowest in the country. Alaska, Louisiana, Montana, and North Carolina are the worst on transparency, with Alaska keeping no known forfeiture records at all. The common thread across the bottom-ranked states is a mix of low evidentiary thresholds, direct financial incentives for the seizing agency, a burden on owners to prove their own innocence, and little or no public reporting. Since 2000, governments across the country have forfeited at least $82 billion in property.1Institute for Justice. Civil Forfeiture Keeps Raking in Billions of Dollars with Few Property Owners Getting Their Day in Court
What Makes a State’s Forfeiture Law Bad
The Institute for Justice grades every state on a few measurable features, and the states that fail do so on the same ones. The first is the standard of proof the government must meet to permanently keep seized property. A state that requires only probable cause scores far worse than one requiring clear and convincing evidence.
The second is where the money goes. When the agency that made the seizure gets to keep the proceeds, the incentive to seize aggressively is built into the budget. The third is the innocent-owner rule: in roughly half the country, the owner must affirmatively prove they had nothing to do with any alleged crime, instead of the government proving they did.
The fourth is whether a criminal conviction is required before property can be forfeited at all. Only 16 states require a conviction for most or all types of property.2Institute for Justice. Civil Forfeiture Reforms on the State Level The rest allow the government to keep your car, cash, or home even if you are never charged. The fifth is transparency. States that do not track or publicly report seizures and spending make abuse hard to detect and harder to fix.
Massachusetts: The Lowest Evidence Standard in the Country
Massachusetts stands alone as the worst state in the country for evidentiary standards. It is the only state that requires just probable cause for the government to forfeit property, a threshold so low it essentially means an officer’s reasonable suspicion is enough. That standard has been in place since 1989 and has never been raised, even as federal law and dozens of other states moved to higher thresholds.3U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Seize the Day: Eliminate Civil Forfeiture in Massachusetts
Massachusetts also has no required timeline for filing a forfeiture action, meaning the government can hold your property indefinitely before even starting the legal process. Law enforcement agencies in the state can retain up to 100 percent of forfeiture proceeds. The Institute for Justice gave Massachusetts an outright F.
For context, 17 states and the federal government use a preponderance of the evidence standard, which only requires showing it is slightly more likely than not that the property was connected to a crime. Twelve states and the District of Columbia require clear and convincing evidence. Florida is the only state requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt in civil forfeiture, and Maine, Montana, and New Mexico have eliminated civil forfeiture entirely, allowing only criminal forfeiture after a conviction.4Institute for Justice. Standard of Proof
North Dakota and the 100 Percent Retention Problem
North Dakota is the other state where law enforcement can keep up to 100 percent of forfeiture proceeds. There is a nominal cap: amounts over $200,000 in the government’s forfeiture account over a two-year budget period go to the general fund, but the threshold is high enough that most agencies never hit it.5Institute for Justice. North Dakota North Dakota earned a D-.
The retention problem is not limited to those two states. Across the country, 42 states return at least 50 percent of forfeiture proceeds directly to the agency that made the seizure. When the department that identifies suspect property is the same department that benefits from selling it, the financial incentive is baked into daily policing decisions. An agency that knows every dollar seized flows into its own equipment or overtime budget has a fundamentally different relationship with forfeiture than one that must send proceeds to the state treasury.
States That Force Owners to Prove Their Innocence
In 25 states and under federal law, you carry the burden of proving you are an innocent owner if you want your property back. Six more states impose that burden for certain property types. Only 19 states and the District of Columbia require the government to prove the owner was involved in or aware of criminal activity.6Institute for Justice. Innocent Owner Protections
If the government seizes your car because a family member allegedly used it in a drug transaction, you have to hire a lawyer and prove you did not know about it. Under federal law, that means showing by a preponderance of the evidence that you either did not know about the illegal conduct or took all reasonable steps to stop it once you learned of it.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 983 – General Rules for Civil Forfeiture Proceedings Owners of modest-value property, a $2,000 car or $800 in cash, often abandon their claims because a lawyer would cost more than the property is worth.
The Worst States for Transparency
A separate Institute for Justice report on forfeiture transparency gave F grades to Alaska, Louisiana, Montana, and North Carolina.8Institute for Justice. Forfeiture Transparency and Accountability Without meaningful reporting, residents have no way to know how much property agencies seize, what happens to it, or how the money is spent.
Alaska is the extreme case: it keeps no known forfeiture records at all. The problem is widespread beyond those four states. Twenty-two states require no reporting on how agencies spend forfeiture proceeds. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia earn near-failing grades on property tracking. Fourteen states produce no statewide forfeiture reports of any kind. Thirty states never require a financial audit of agency forfeiture accounts.8Institute for Justice. Forfeiture Transparency and Accountability In those states, understanding the scope of forfeiture activity requires public records requests with no guarantee of useful results.
Montana appears on both ends of the ledger. It has eliminated civil forfeiture, which puts it among the best on the substantive law, but it still fails on tracking and reporting what little forfeiture activity remains.
The Federal Workaround That Undoes State Reforms
Even states that have tightened their own laws face a workaround through the federal Equitable Sharing Program. The program lets state and local law enforcement partner with federal agencies and process seizures under federal law instead of state law.9Department of Justice. Equitable Sharing Program The federal government keeps a minimum of 20 percent and returns up to 80 percent to the participating local agency.10Internal Revenue Service. 9.7.9 Equitable Sharing and Reverse Asset Sharing For a local department in a state that caps police retention at 25 percent, routing a seizure through the federal program can nearly triple the financial return.
The most criticized mechanism is federal adoption, where a federal agency takes over a seizure initiated entirely by local or state officers. That allows the local agency to sidestep state requirements for a criminal conviction, higher evidence standards, or proceeds-sharing rules. A handful of states have pushed back. California banned equitable sharing of property and cash up to $40,000 under drug laws unless there is a criminal conviction. Nebraska prohibited transferring property worth $25,000 or less to a federal agency unless a federal agent made the seizure or a federal prosecution is underway.11Institute for Justice. Evaluating Efforts to Reform Equitable Sharing Many states have done nothing to close this gap, so a state’s forfeiture grade on paper can overstate the protection its residents actually have.
How the Better States Compare
The bottom of the rankings looks worse when you set it against what other states have done. Maine abolished civil forfeiture in 2021, joining Montana and New Mexico as states that allow only criminal forfeiture. Maine also barred transferring seized property to the federal government for forfeiture unless it is connected to an active federal criminal case.12Institute for Justice. Recent Reforms and Overall Grades
Arizona enacted a conviction requirement and eliminated uncontested forfeitures, where the government could keep property simply because no one challenged the seizure. Arizona also banned on-the-spot waivers that pressured people into giving up property rights during traffic stops. Kansas and Washington raised their standard of proof from preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing. Alabama prohibited seizures of currency under $250 and vehicles worth under $5,000. Delaware now requires a criminal charge before forfeiture can proceed and bars seizing currency under $500. New Jersey adopted one of the strongest forfeiture transparency laws in the country.12Institute for Justice. Recent Reforms and Overall Grades Every one of those reforms is something the bottom-graded states have not done.