Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
County auditor finds no evidence of unauthorized seizures but flags record-keeping and notice shortcomings in King County Sheriff’s asset forfeiture program
Loading...
Summary
A King County Auditor's Office audit found the sheriff’s civil asset forfeiture program seized roughly $9–9.8 million in cash and dozens of vehicles and houses since 2017, found no evidence of seizures outside documented processes, but recommended improvements in electronic record-keeping, reconciliation and clearer, translated seizure notices.
The King County Auditor’s Office recommended improvements to record-keeping, reconciliation and notice language in an audit of the King County Sheriff’s Office civil asset forfeiture program, while finding no evidence the sheriff’s deputies seized property outside the documented forfeiture process.
Auditors Brooke Leary and Peter (last name in transcript) told the Law and Justice Committee they reviewed seizures from 2017 through 2023 and estimated roughly $9,000,000–$9,800,000 in cash was seized during that period, along with dozens of cars and houses. The auditors said the program’s paper-based case files and an electronic spreadsheet that is not the official record made it difficult to determine totals, case status, or how often seizures were challenged.
The key findings: The sheriff’s office maintains paper case folders as the official record and an electronic log that is incomplete and not consistently reconciled with the accounting unit’s records, auditors said. Because of those gaps, the audit recommended the sheriff ensure the electronic logs are accurate, reconcile the logs maintained by the asset-forfeiture unit and the sheriff’s budget and accounting unit, and record and reconcile withdrawals in the centralized log monthly. Auditors also recommended tracking whether forfeiture cases have associated criminal cases and their outcomes; the sheriff’s office did not concur with tracking associated criminal-case outcomes, saying the burden of manual lookups outweighed the benefits.
The auditors reported that in closed cases they reviewed, about 40% of seized cash was returned to property owners and about 60% was deemed forfeited; roughly $3 million in cash seized between 2017–2023 remained pending resolution in the records the auditors reviewed. For vehicles, auditors estimated about 120 cars were seized in that period; 43 were returned, 26 forfeited, and 51 lacked resolution status in electronic logs. For houses, auditors found 41 houses seized but only one case with a recorded resolution in the logs.
On notices and language access: Auditors said the standardized seizure notice form had been available only in English and that about 15% of persons with identified race/ethnicity in the audit sample might have limited English proficiency. The sheriff’s office updated policies in September 2024 to increase language access and has submitted the form for translation; the sheriff’s office said translations should be complete within roughly two weeks of the committee meeting. Auditors also flagged that the notice’s explanation of how to challenge seizures is written at a twelfth-grade reading level and contains language that could be read to shift the burden of proof to claimants; state law places the burden on law enforcement.
On process and oversight: Auditors noted the sheriff’s asset forfeiture unit includes an attorney who reviews seizures and that the sheriff’s office policy limits forfeiture to high-level felony investigations (trafficking, conspiracy) rather than misdemeanor possession offenses. In committee comments, the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and sheriff’s office representatives clarified state law bars forfeiture for misdemeanors, and the sheriff’s office said its internal policy is more restrictive than state law.
The sheriff’s office’s chief of staff Jeffrey Thomas acknowledged gaps in having a single electronic system but said the agency can reconcile records and plans to develop a more comprehensive spreadsheet or database. Auditors recommended the sheriff consider having claim hearings overseen by the independent hearing examiner’s office to avoid an appearance of conflict of interest; the sheriff said it would examine that recommendation and noted it already uses outside hearing examiners for hearings.
The auditors issued 10 recommendations; the executive concurred with nine. The audit report is available on the King County Auditor’s Office website.
