The King County Sheriff’s Office (KCSO) must improve transparency and accessibility in its asset forfeiture process, according to a newly-released King County Auditor’s Office report.
KCSO contracts its police services to the City of Burien, along with 15 other jurisdictions.
The audit found that KCSO relies on outdated, paper-based recordkeeping and provides unclear notices to individuals whose property has been seized, potentially discouraging them from challenging forfeitures.
“The Sheriff’s Office is already taking steps to strengthen the controls on their civil asset forfeiture process in response to our audit,” King County Auditor Kymber Waltmunson said. “It is encouraging that they are taking improvements to this sensitive, high-dollar practice seriously.”
Findings Highlight Recordkeeping & Communication Issues
State law allows law enforcement agencies to seize property—such as cash, cars, and houses—when it is believed to be connected to felony-level drug crimes. If property owners do not successfully challenge the seizure, the Sheriff’s Office can keep 90% of forfeiture proceeds for its own use, with the remaining 10% going to the State Treasury.
Between 2017 and 2023, KCSO seized approximately $9.4 million in assets, including 120 vehicles and 40 homes related to felony drug investigations. While the audit did not uncover evidence of abuse, it raised significant concerns about transparency, fairness, and due process in the forfeiture system.
Among the audit’s key findings:
- Inadequate Recordkeeping: KCSO’s paper-based system made it difficult to track total asset seizures across multiple cases. Initially, auditors found a $1.5 million discrepancy in the Sheriff’s forfeiture account, though a manual review later reduced this to under $250.
- Limited Tracking of Challenges: The Sheriff’s Office does not systematically track how often property owners challenge seizures. However, auditors estimated that $2.6 million—roughly 40% of cash seized in resolved cases—was returned through negotiated settlements.
- Confusing & Inaccessible Notices: The seizure notice form was previously available only in English, limiting accessibility for non-English speakers. It also contained legal language that incorrectly implied the burden of proof was on the property owner. Under Washington state law, it is the Sheriff’s Office that must prove the property should be forfeited.
- Lack of Independent Hearings: While property owners can challenge seizures in court or through a hearing, KCSO currently designates who oversees hearings, which may discourage claimants from using the process. The audit suggested an independent body, such as the Hearing Examiner’s Office, should oversee hearings to ensure fairness.
Recommendations & Next Steps
The audit makes 10 recommendations to improve the asset forfeiture system, including:
- Transitioning to electronic records to improve oversight and reduce manual reconciliation issues.
- Revising the seizure notice form to use plain language and accurately reflect the burden of proof.
- Expanding language accessibility by translating notices into multiple languages.
- Assigning independent oversight of forfeiture hearings to avoid conflicts of interest.
KCSO has indicated it is already working to implement several of the audit’s recommendations to ensure the process is more transparent and accessible.
The full audit report is available here.
Video
Below is a video regarding this issue from the Auditor’s Office:
The entire process of asset forfeiture is deeply flawed and ripe for abuse. It undermines public trust in our local police forces and raises serious concerns about accountability. This practice needs to be thoroughly reviewed—and ultimately eliminated in its current form. When law enforcement has a financial incentive to seize assets, it can distort their mission to protect and serve the public. Just watch the episode on this topic by John Oliver, and it’s hard not to agree: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
A 40% negotiated settlement rate is an indicator of an intentionally bad process. Civil Forfiture is a cash cow for nearly every police department in the country. They often use that money to buy surplus military equipment that gives them paramilitary equipment and weapons that end up being used excessively and unjustifably. So it is not in their best interest to care.
It should not be this hard to get your assets wrongfully seized returned, in the same condition they were seized. The auditors recommendations are a good first step.
Allow me to help you understand why Law Enforcement seeks out surplus military equipment, when they encounter some hoodrat with a full auto switch on a Glock or a cartel member running a drug supply house armed with an AK47, how else do you expect them to have a fighting chance against such overwhelming firepower without the appropriate tools?