Civil Asset Forfeiture: Increased Transparency Would Improve Accountability

The King County Sheriff’s Office’s lack of centralized information limits transparency and accountability for the civil asset forfeiture program. Records are primarily kept in case-specific paper folders, which require intensive research to determine basic facts about the scale or scope of the program as a whole. For example, 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 lack of centralized data also means the Sheriff’s Office has not been able to regularly reconcile bank account balances with expected amounts. For example, the Sheriff’s Office had recorded returned assets on paper records kept in individual case files, rather than its combined accounting spreadsheet; this caused its bank account balance to appear $1.5 million short when we compared it to its spreadsheets. After we pointed out this issue, the Sheriff’s Office conducted a manual review of over a hundred open case files and was able to reconcile the account.

In addition, we found potential barriers for people whose property was seized to challenge the seizure. For example, the notice that informs people of their rights to challenge a seizure is only available in English and contains inaccurate and potentially confusing language. People might also be discouraged from challenging a seizure because the Sheriff or their designee oversees hearings, unless the claimant opts to take the case court.

We recommend that the Sheriff’s Office keep and reconcile complete, accurate, and centralized records of all seizures and ensure its notice form uses accurate, plain language and is translated into languages other than English.

Transparency and accountability are important to counter the perception of a conflict of interest or abuse of power when an agency directly benefits financially from its own actions, which is the case with civil asset forfeiture. Since 2017, the Sheriff’s Office has seized millions of dollars in cash, as well as cars, houses, and other property. The Sheriff’s Office can seize a person’s property when an officer reasonably believes it was acquired, at least partially, from the sale of drugs. Unless the person successfully challenges the seizure, the Sheriff’s Office can legally keep most of the property for its own use. Challenges to seizures are decided by the Sheriff or their designee, unless the claimant opts for a full court trial. The burden of proof to seize assets is lower than a criminal trial and no arrests or criminal charges are required to seize such property.