South Fulton council hears concerns about civil asset forfeiture backlog and options for local limits

Mayor Khalid opened a council work session on May 27 by asking about a spreadsheet he said showed hundreds of asset forfeiture cases tied to the city. The city’s discussion — which included a representative from the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office, the South Fulton police chief, and civil forfeiture reform advocates — centered on how many seized-property cases are pending, how the county handles notices and petitions, and whether the city should adopt its own policy to stay seizures until conviction.

City context and why it matters: Civil asset forfeiture lets law enforcement and prosecutors seek to keep property they say is tied to crime. Reformers say the practice can strip property from people who have not been convicted; law enforcement says the tool helps disrupt criminal operations. The debate in South Fulton focused on transparent reporting, whether seized-but-not-forfeited property is tracked publicly, and whether the city should adopt stricter rules than state law.

Grant Rood, a forfeiture lawyer with the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office, told council members how the county handles seized property and notices. “When police agencies including the South Fulton Police Department seize money or other property from defendants, they refer the case to us,” Rood said. He described the county’s process: notices are served, people have time to claim property and, in many cases, the DA’s office waits for the criminal case to resolve before moving to forfeit. He said the office often returns property when claimants produce documentation showing funds are legitimate.

Advocates urged stricter local rules. Scott Turner, executive director of Eternal Vigilance Action and a former state representative, urged the city to require a criminal conviction before seizing or forfeiting property. “Civil asset forfeiture in Georgia … takes the concept of innocent until proven guilty and flips it upside down,” Turner said, citing state code that allows civil forfeiture even after an acquittal and noting median forfeiture values his group found in some local reports.

Officials, reporting limits, and data questions: City staff and the Fulton DA’s office told council there are different reports and data sources. The Fulton DA’s office said the Carl Vinson Institute reports items that completed the forfeiture adjudication; the DA’s office does not publish a list of active seized-but-pending items. The city manager said she had compiled spreadsheet extracts for the mayor showing seized-property line items and that some aggregation would be needed to reconcile various counts. The city manager told council she counted 133 cash cases and 46 vehicle cases from 2017–2025 in materials the city has, though she said the mayor’s figure of 297 “looks high” and may double-count spreadsheet lines.

Chief Kevin Meadows of the South Fulton Police Department described how seized items are handled locally while cases are pending: seized cash and property are secured; the department notifies the DA and stores or deposits evidence; and officers have used forfeiture funds to pay for training and “to put really comprehensive investigations in place.” “Primarily what we've used the money for is training,” Chief Meadows said, adding the funds helped build investigative capacity in undercover operations.

Points of disagreement: Reform advocates pressed whether the county’s practice of often waiting for criminal dispositions is sufficient and argued the city could adopt an ordinance to require conviction before forfeiture or to return property automatically after an acquittal. Some council members said they wanted more data before acting; others urged caution so police retain tools to disrupt drug houses and other illicit operations. The Fulton DA’s representative said the office routinely delays forfeiture in many circumstances and noted statutory service and notice obligations.

What’s next: Council members asked staff to produce a clearer, aggregated dataset about seized property tied to South Fulton — how many cases, dates and types of property, and which have been adjudicated — so the council can consider whether to propose a city policy or an ordinance that supplements (but cannot override) state law. Council members also discussed inviting reform groups and the DA’s office back for a follow-up focused on concrete policy options.

Ending: The council took no formal vote on a change in policy at the meeting; members asked staff to provide more detailed data and said they wanted time to review options before considering ordinance language or other formal action.