Until fairly recently, Indiana had “no unified reporting mechanism for forfeitures.” ¹ In 2015, the General Assembly passed a law requiring prosecutors to annually report limited information on their forfeiture cases, including any farmed out to private attorneys working on contingency, to the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council. The law also requires IPAC, a state judicial agency that supports state prosecutors’ offices, to compile this information into annual aggregate reports for the General Assembly. ² The reporting law’s goal was, as one bill author explained, to “get a handle on how much is being forfeited in this state” to help “determine whether … it makes any sense to change some rules in the forfeiture law.” ³

In 2018, lawmakers introduced a bill with additional reporting requirements, with one author noting that lawmakers were “bereft of any of that real information about what’s going on out there. We don’t have nearly enough information to be able to make intelligent decisions about how the [state’s forfeiture law] affects people.” ⁴ The bill passed, requiring prosecutors to report additional details about seized and forfeited property, including the type of property seized; whether the forfeiture was contested; whether an innocent owner made a claim; and whether the property was returned to the owner, destroyed, forfeited, retained, or distributed via settlement. ⁵

While far from perfect, Indiana’s reporting laws promised to provide a clearer picture of forfeiture in the state. ⁶ One thing they have made clear is that forfeiture is big business. From fiscal years 2016 to 2023, IPAC reports compiled for the General Assembly reported nearly $36 million in forfeiture proceeds. ⁷ On top of that, between fiscal years 2016 and 2022, Indiana agencies transferred at least $14.9 million in cash and other property to the federal government for forfeiture under its equitable sharing program. ⁸

Unfortunately, as my analysis below shows, the promise of a truly clear picture remains unfulfilled. These top-line figures, as well as other information reported to the legislature, should be taken with a multimillion-dollar grain of salt. Not only are many forfeiture cases missing entirely, but the data reported are hopelessly inaccurate. Now, instead of no data, lawmakers have bad data, giving them less of “a handle on” forfeiture activity than before they instituted transparency laws.