LEGISLATIVE SERVICES AGENCY
OFFICE OF FISCAL AND MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS
200 W. Washington St., Suite 301
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 233-0696
iga.in.gov
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
LS 6744 NOTE PREPARED: Dec 30, 2021
BILL NUMBER: SB 295 BILL AMENDED:
SUBJECT: Criminal Forfeiture.
FIRST AUTHOR: Sen. Boots BILL STATUS: As Introduced
FIRST SPONSOR:
FUNDS AFFECTED:XGENERAL IMPACT: State & Local
XDEDICATED
XFEDERAL
Summary of Legislation: This bill repeals the existing civil forfeiture law and establishes a procedure for
criminal forfeiture. It also makes conforming amendments.
Effective Date: July 1, 2022.
Explanation of State Expenditures: The bill will reduce the workload of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys
Council (IPAC) by removing the following responsibilities.
• Compiling forfeiture data and annually submitting a report to the Legislative Council.
• Using money from the Drug Prosecution Fund to assist prosecuting attorneys in bringing actions for
forfeiture, and to recover law enforcement and correction costs.
Explanation of State Revenues: Summary - The revenue loss from this bill is indeterminable. The loss
would occur because: (1) forfeiture cases would be filed as part of a criminal action instead of a civil action,
(2) fewer assets would be eligible for seizure and (3) fewer methods could be used to seize these assets.
Currently the state receives $1.4 M when participating in the Equitable Sharing Program with federal law
enforcement agencies. This revenue is deposited into a special project account administered by the Indiana
State Police. Reimbursements to the Indiana State Police deposited into the state General Fund would be
reduced. A three average of reimbursements deposited into the General Fund is $260,000. Finally, there
would be an indeterminable loss to the Common School Fund, which over the past three years was $279,000.
Additional Information – The amount of revenue that the state could receive from forfeited assets would
SB 295 1 likely be reduced by the fewer legal actions that law enforcement agencies can use to seize personal property.
Under current law, personal property can be seized and then forfeited as a result of a lawful arrest, a search,
or an administrative inspection (such as stopping a car with defective brake lights). As proposed, personal
property can only be seized as part of a lawful arrest. In addition the types of assets that law enforcement
agencies can seize under current law include real property, U.S. currency of less than $200, and motor
vehicles with a fair market value of less than $2,000. This bill would exempt these items from seizure and
forfeiture.
Federal Revenue Sharing – The number of cases in which state and local law enforcement agencies could
participate in the Equitable Sharing Program with federal drug enforcement agencies to seize and forfeit
assets involved in criminal enterprises would likely be reduced. The state portion of revenue received from
forfeiture actions that result from these coordinated efforts are deposited into a special project account
administered by the Indiana State Police. Annual revenue of $1.4 M. has been deposited into this account
between FY 2017 and FY 2021. With less participation, revenue would likely decline.
Revenue From Asset Forfeitures Deposited in the General Fund – The revenue collected as part of
reimbursement for participating in drug enforcement actions with other local law enforcement agencies was
on average $260,000 between FY 2019 and FY 2021. Currently, the state receives a flat percentage of the revenue
generated by forfeitures. This bill could require documentation be presented to the court of the costs incurred for each
case in which these law enforcement agencies participated in seizures and forfeitures.
Revenue Deposited into the Common School Fund – The Common School Fund is the final repository of
forfeiture revenues after payments to law enforcement agencies, prosecuting attorneys and other parties that
are involved in the forfeiture process. The average forfeiture revenue was $279,000 for the three-year period
between FY 2019 and FY 2021. Revenue to the Common School Fund would likely be reduced by the
restrictions in this bill and by adding the following before the remaining balance is deposited into the
Common School Fund: (1) restitutions to victims of the crimes, and (2) reimbursement of the expenses of
public defender offices for salaries, benefits and overtime pay actually expended in the case.
Explanation of Local Expenditures: Criminal Instead of Civil Action – This bill would make the forfeiture
process part of a criminal proceeding. In this procedure, property that is seized may not be forfeited unless
the owner of the property has been convicted of the charged offense and the state proves by clear and
convincing evidence that the property was used in the charged offense, was money that was generated by the
offense or was property that was purchased with the money from the charged offense. Under current law,
forfeitures are filed as civil actions, and the prosecuting attorney must show by a preponderance of evidence
that the property was within the definition of property subject to seizure.
Additional Workload – Under current law, a flat percentage of the proceeds of sales and money is deposited
into the forfeiture fund of the prosecuting attorneys and 85% of the remaining proceeds are deposited into
the state General Funds and the funds of local units of government which had agencies participate in the
seizure and forfeiture actions. Under this bill, these agencies, including prosecuting attorneys, law
enforcement agencies and public defender offices would be required to calculate the actual expenses
associated with the forfeiture actions on a case by case basis before they are reimbursed.
Explanation of Local Revenues: Criminal Instead of Civil Action – This bill could reduce money obtained
from seizure and forfeiture actions to recover the costs of law enforcement by changing the procedure for
both seizing assets related to criminal activities and forfeiting the assets to the state and local governments.
Under current law, after paying attorney’s fees for forfeiture proceedings and depositing a certain portion into
SB 295 2 the forfeiture fund established by each prosecuting attorney, 85% of the remaining proceeds of assets, seizures,
and forfeitures are deposited in the general funds of the state and local units of government depending on which
agencies in the state and local unit of government participate in the seizure and forfeiture actions. As proposed,
prosecuting attorney offices, law enforcement agencies and public defender offices would be reimbursed would
by each case in which the office can document the costs incurred. The prosecuting attorneys offices and local
law enforcement agencies receive $3.8 M annually from these reimbursements.
State Agencies Affected: Indiana State Police, Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council.
Local Agencies Affected: Prosecuting attorneys; Local law enforcement agencies.
Information Sources: Agency Reports to the General Assembly; Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council;
Indiana State Police; Auditor’s Data Base Fund #44180 and #44860.
Fiscal Analyst: Mark Goodpaster, 317-232-9852.
SB 295 3