Press Release: 8/26/2026

District attorneys can take control of people’s property before they’ve been found guilty of a crime. Your vote can help reform this practice.

 

Civil asset forfeiture laws in Massachusetts are horribly unfair and perpetuate damaging abuses of power. District attorneys can change the practices in their own offices on day one.

August 24, 2026

 

By: Katy Naples-Mitchell

Civil asset forfeiture is a legal process that allows law enforcement to seize property — including homes, cars, businesses, and cash — allegedly connected to a crime. In Massachusetts, the supposed purpose of civil forfeiture is to disrupt large drugenterprises by confiscating resources. Yet, in reality, this practice is a serious abuse of power that strips innocent people of their property, upends due process rights, and undermines governmental accountability.

In 2025, the Institute for Justice gave Massachusetts a failing grade in a report on state civil asset forfeiture laws. Ours was the only state to earn an F. And there’s no doubt that Massachusetts deserved it.

For one thing, in the Bay State, the government only needs to show probable cause to initiate forfeiture — a reasonable belief that the property is tied to a crime based on the surrounding facts and circumstances. By contrast, other states require the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt or show clear and convincing evidence that a given property is associated with a crime. The Massachusetts standard makes it far too easy for law enforcement to seize property — and to target innocent people, including family members of an accused person long before that loved one is even convicted of a crime.

Furthermore, in Massachusetts, up to 100% of the funds from the forfeiture go to law enforcement, which is a strong incentive for authorities to go after cars, cash, and other property. Combining a low standard to seize property with a pure fiscal incentive creates circumstances ripe for abuse.

District attorneys play a critical role in civil forfeiture because of their power to bring criminal charges and civil forfeiture cases, which target the property directly in a separate civil process. Shockingly, prosecutors can also initiate forfeiture prior to filing charges — meaning they can move to seize property allegedly involved in a crime before the owner is charged, much less convicted.

This fall, we must hold district attorneys accountable and elect candidates who will fight to reform — not perpetuate — this practice to create a more just, transparent, and equitable criminal legal system. District attorneys can change the rules for whenprosecutors may move to forfeit property, such as only after a criminal conviction. In addition, they can restrict whose property is seized as “connected” to a crime, like prohibiting law enforcement from targeting property owned by an un-charged person. And they can lobby to improve the rules on civil asset forfeiture, as states have already done across the country.

Civil forfeiture timelines can vary wildly from county to county. 

In 2023, the Massachusetts State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights published a report on civil asset forfeiture in the Commonwealth. One notable finding: there is “significant variation” across the state in how much time elapses between when the government seizes property and when it files an official legal action to initiate forfeiture proceedings.

The report found that it could be anywhere from four weeks to two years, depending on the county. In the most extreme case, it was 32 years. This raises major due process concerns for Bay Staters.

Consider the case of Malinda Harris. In March 2015, Malinda Harris let her son, Trevice, borrow her car. One night, the Berkshire County Law Enforcement Task Force seized the car because Trevice was suspected of selling drugs, even though law enforcement did not allege that he used the car for drug dealing or that Malinda knew about the alleged criminal activity. More than five years later, in October 2020, Malinda was served with a civil forfeiture complaint that had been prepared in January 2020. All that time, the county sat on her seized car, and she had no access to it or opportunity to get it back. Six years later, and with the threat of legal action, Berkshire County returned Malinda’s car.

Civil asset forfeiture can target people who are not suspected of criminal activity.

Individuals suspected of criminal activity can be subject to forfeiture cases, but third parties — or those who merely own property allegedly used in or connected to a crime — are also susceptible. For example, if criminal activity is suspected at a home, the home itself could be forfeited — even if the property owner was not involved in any crime. Third party property owners could include spouses, parents, grandparents, vehicle-leasing companies, creditors, or even the owners of a hotelwhere drug activity was alleged.

This is not an abstract risk. According to a 2021 investigation by WBUR and ProPublica, which did a deep dive into civil asset forfeiture practices in Worcester County, 24% of asset seizures in 2018 were not associated with a criminal conviction or even linked to a criminal drug charge. In other words, nearly one in four people who had assets seized by law enforcement were never charged with a crime.

Further, in Massachusetts, in order to reclaim property after it has been seized, the third-party owner must prove they had no knowledge or involvement in any criminal activity associated with their property. This is known as the “innocent owner defense,” and only third-party owners can raise this defense — not suspects, even if charges are never filed against them.

In 19 states and Washington, D.C., the government must prove a third-party owner’s guilt after this defense is raised to forfeit the property. In Massachusetts, the owner has the responsibility to prove their innocence — meaning the law adopts a presumption of guilt, even if the person was never charged with a crime.

Making the situation even more challenging, people seeking to regain seized property have no right to legal counsel. Therefore, they must meet this steep burden of proof against government lawyers alone — unless they can afford a lawyer of their own. This can be especially challenging if they are indigent or if their limited financial resources have been seized by the government.

In 2021, a Special Commission on Civil Asset Forfeiture Policies and Practices in the Commonwealth recommended that the Legislature consider providing public counsel for people who are indigent and subject to forfeiture proceedings. The Legislature has not adopted this change since the report’s publication five years ago.

Overall, roughly 72 to 80% of civil forfeiture cases default — meaning a judgment enters against the property and in favor of the government because the original owner did not appear in court to defend their ownership — or proceed to permanent forfeiture, according to the Massachusetts State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Up to 100% of the funds from civil asset forfeiture go to law enforcement and are not subject to oversight. 

In Massachusetts, law enforcement can retain up to 100% of the funds from civil asset forfeiture. These funds are intended to support programs that benefit the community. Yet, forfeited assets — from cash to cars to real property — can be a major source of unrestricted and unaccounted funds for law enforcement. And there are very few limitations on how these funds can be used.

The Institute of Justice estimates that Massachusetts law enforcement acquired over $401 million in forfeiture revenue between 2000 and 2023. Forfeiture asset revenue varies between counties, and state audits are one way to ascertain these totals. For example, the Norfolk District Attorney’s Office’s forfeited asset revenue was $434,174 between July 2019 and June 2021, according to a state audit. On the other hand, in Berkshire County, the Office of the State Auditor could not calculate the total revenue because law enforcement failed to properly document or deposit forfeited asset revenue. Because of this, the audit could not “ensure the accuracy and transparency of accounting of the receiving funds” between 2021 and 2023.

Even when revenue is documented correctly, it is not subject to oversight or meaningful public reporting requirements because the state obtains forfeiture asset revenue outside of the legislature’s appropriation and budgetary process. Put simply, Massachusetts residents are left in the dark about how these funds are used.

Ultimately, as long as law enforcement stands to benefit from civil forfeiture, they have a significant financial incentive to continue this practice.

Here’s why your vote matters. 

In comparison to neighboring states, Massachusetts’ civil asset forfeiture laws are horribly unfair and perpetuate damaging abuses of power. District attorneys can change the practices in their own offices on day one and could be a powerful voice in calling for change on Beacon Hill. This fall, we must demand that district attorneys in Massachusetts take responsibility for implementing fair policies within their own jurisdictions and pressing for equitable statewide reform to create a fairer criminal legal system for all.

The ACLU of Massachusetts — together with our network of partners — is dedicated to spreading the word about What a Difference a DA Makes. Join our Action Team to help out!