[2017 Session] Improve Due Process in Criminal Asset Forfeiture

Policy Background:

During a traffic stop, law enforcement may seize a person’s money, vehicle, or other possessions if they feel those items have either been used in a crime, are intended to be used in a crime, or were the proceeds of a crime. The State then files a civil forfeiture action against those items and must only prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the possessions were contraband.

Asset forfeiture was originally intended as a means to pursue wealth belonging to drug lords and organized crime networks, but law enforcement now overwhelmingly focus on much lower-level cases. Many people are never convicted or even charged with a crime, and they must wait weeks or months to have their property returned.

Moreover, the standard for civil seizure – “preponderance of the evidence” (more likely than not to be true) – is lower than the standard required for a criminal conviction. This low standard is especially difficult to overcome for people who are unable to hire an attorney to challenge the seizure of their possessions.

Texas policy-makers should strengthen the standard for seizing assets under civil law and require a criminal conviction before assets can be permanently taken. Only people convicted of a crime should lose the related cash or vehicle.

Key Facts:

  • TCJE reviewed 151 civil asset forfeiture case files for Travis County, in which officers seized nearly $2 million in cash, along with vehicles, guns, drugs, and gaming equipment.

    The majority of cases involve forfeiture of relatively small amounts of cash. The median forfeiture in this study was $4,451. Twenty-two percent of cases involved less than $2,000.

    Travis County quickly settles most cases if the property owner hires an attorney. The settlement gives a portion of the money back in amounts that vary widely but cluster around 50% and 20% of the original amount seized. Two out of six people had their vehicles returned.1
  • The related criminal case may take months or even longer to resolve.

Relevant Bills:

  • Bill Number: SB 156 [Hinojosa]
    Bill Caption: Relating to criminal asset forfeiture proceedings.
  • Bill Number: SB 380 [Burton]
    Bill Caption: Relating to repealing civil asset forfeiture provisions and establishing criminal asset forfeiture in this state.
  • Bill Number: SB 401 [Huffman]
    Bill Caption: Relating to the seizure of property by a peace officer.

Other Bills Related to Asset Forfeiture:

  • Bill Number: HB 1392 [Senfronia Thompson]
    Bill Caption: Relating to the use of an electronic recovery and access to data prepaid card reader to seize forfeitable property.
  • Bill Number: SB 480 [Burton]
    Bill Caption: Relating to the use of an electronic recovery and access to data prepaid card reader to seize forfeitable property.
  • Bill Number: SB 481 [Burton]
    Bill Caption: Relating to the reporting and disposition of proceeds and property from asset forfeiture proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
  • Bill Number: SB 662 [Huffines]
    Bill Caption: Relating to the reporting of proceeds and property from asset forfeiture proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
  • Bill Number: SB 663 [Huffines]
    Bill Caption: Relating to disposition of proceeds and property from asset forfeiture proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

  • Bill Number: SB 1714 [Hall]
    Bill Caption: Relating to the expenditure of proceeds and property from and the state's burden of proof in asset forfeiture proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Other Materials:

1 The Texas Center for Justice and Equity reviewed 151 civil asset forfeiture cases filed in Travis County from December 8, 2014, to April 21, 2016. We read each case file and recorded filing dates, information about the items forfeited, presence of an attorney for the assets, and the nature of the original search or investigation.