More Process and Proof: 2025 Legislative Changes to Civil Asset Forfeiture Procedures

The Washington State Legislature recently passed HB 1440. Effective January 1, 2026, this new legislation changes current civil asset forfeiture laws in several significant ways that local governments and law enforcement agencies should be aware of. This blog examines those changes and how they will affect civil asset forfeiture practices throughout the state.

Background — What Is Civil Asset Forfeiture?

Civil asset forfeiture is a legal process allowing state agencies and local governments to seize an individual’s money or property if it has been proven that this money/property was connected to certain criminal activity. Examples can include vehicles used to commit felonies, money proceeds from controlled substance violations, or equipment used to produce sexually explicit depictions of minors.

Authorities often pursue civil asset forfeiture in connection with criminal investigations, but it is a civil action that is separate and distinct from any related criminal case.

Law enforcement agencies generally need a superior court order to seize assets, but they can seize personal property (such as money, personal effects, or vehicles) without going to court if:

• the seizure is incident to an arrest or a search with a warrant, or
• the seizing officer has probable cause to believe that the owner used or intended to use the asset in a specified crime.

Seizing agencies must give due process by notifying a seized item’s owner (or other legally interested party) of the seizure, giving them a chance to request a hearing to challenge the seizure within 45 days (for seized personal property) or 90 days (for real property seizures) from the date of notice of seizure. (Importantly, this procedural requirement does not apply to seized contraband items that are illegal to possess — such as illegal drugs — that can be “summarily forfeited” to the seizing agency.)

If a law enforcement agency seizes property without first going to court, the owner’s requested hearing can proceed before the seizing agency’s chief law enforcement officer (or their designee, such as a hearing examiner) unless the owner “removes” the case to the county district court. (The superior court hears challenges to seizures of real property or personal property valued at more than $100,000.)

The seizing agency prevails at a hearing if it proves its forfeiture case by a preponderance of evidence (commonly described as “more likely than not,” or proof to any degree over 50%). It prevails by default if no hearing is requested by the property owner in a timely manner.

If the seizing agency prevails by default or at a hearing, the seized items are ordered forfeited to the agency, which can then use, sell, or dispose of them in accordance with certain restrictions (for example, agencies that seize property for controlled substance violations can generally only use the forfeited property for controlled substance enforcement purposes).

Conversely, if the owner prevails at a hearing, the agency must return the seized items, and it may be ordered to pay the owner’s reasonable attorney’s fees in connection with the seizure case.

Finally, seizing agencies must remit 10% of their net forfeiture proceeds to the state, and current forfeiture law requires agencies to submit quarterly seizure and forfeiture reports to the Washington State Treasurer.

The above general civil asset forfeiture requirements and procedures have undergone relatively few changes over many years, but HB 1440 makes several significant changes to civil asset forfeiture laws.

Which Forfeiture Laws Are Affected by HB 1440?

The changes in HB 1440 will affect the following civil asset forfeiture laws:

• RCW 9.68A.120: addresses seizure and forfeiture of property used to manufacture or process sexually explicit depictions of minors
• RCW 9A.88.150: addresses seizure and forfeiture of property “acquired or maintained” in violation of laws prohibiting minor commercial sexual abuse or promoting prostitution
• RCW 9A.83.030: makes “proceeds traceable to or derived from” money laundering subject to seizure and forfeiture
• RCW 10.105.010: subjects property “employed as an instrumentality of” a felony to seizure and forfeiture
• RCW 19.290.230: addresses seizure and forfeiture of personal property involved in the theft, trafficking, or unlawful possession of commercial metal property
• RCW 46.61.5058: addresses seizure of vehicles involved in repeat offense DUIs
• RCW 70.74.400: addresses seizure and forfeiture of unlawful explosives and related devices
• RCW 69.50.505: subjects property involved in unlawful controlled substances to seizure and forfeiture

How Will HB 1440 Change Forfeiture Laws?

Although spread throughout the above RCW sections, HB 1440 can be distilled to making major changes to the following: burden of proof, hearing request deadlines and removal procedures, consolidation of procedures, agency reporting requirements, and the civil relief act for active armed forces members.

Burden of proof

HB 1440 makes two changes to the burden of proof in current civil asset forfeiture cases.

First, it changes who must prove certain matters. Current laws provide that seizing agencies cannot prove forfeiture through unlawful acts committed without the property owner’s knowledge or consent. HB 1440 retains this principle but removes the current requirement that owners “establish” their lack of knowledge or consent as a defense. Instead, the bill requires seizing agencies to prove the owner’s knowledge and consent to the acts supporting the property’s seizure and forfeiture.

Second, HB 1440 raises an agency’s burden of proof at a forfeiture hearing to “clear, cogent, and convincing” evidence, which is higher than the current “preponderance of evidence” standard but lower than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal cases. It is commonly conceptualized as proved with at least 75% certainty.

Hearing request deadlines

Current forfeiture law gives property owners 45 days from a seizure notice to request a hearing in personal property seizures, and 90 days from notice to request a hearing in seizures of real property. HB 1440 lengthens these hearing request deadlines to 60 days and 120 days, respectively.

Hearing removal procedures

As noted above, owners of seized personal property valued at $100,000 or less can currently petition to have a forfeiture hearing “removed” from the agency to a court. With the passage of HB 1440, owners of seized property may now opt to “remove” the forfeiture hearing to a municipal court (within the seizing agency’s jurisdiction, if possible) rather than the county district court.

Consolidation of procedures

Civil asset forfeitures are currently regulated by the eight RCW sections noted above. The specific RCW section that controls a forfeiture case can vary with the underlying unlawful act(s), but these different code sections contain essentially identical forfeiture procedures and requirements, resulting in duplicative and redundant provisions. HB 1440 consolidates these repetitive provisions into Title 7 RCW (with the exception of procedures related to controlled substance civil asset forfeiture, which will remain codified at RCW 69.50.505).

Agency reporting requirements

Current laws require seizing agencies to file quarterly reports of their seizure and forfeiture activities with the state treasurer, but HB 1440 removes this reporting requirement.

Civil relief act for active armed forces members

HB 1440 will also clearly subject civil asset forfeitures to the requirements in chapter 38.42 RCW (the Service Members’ Civil Relief Act). This means that if a seized asset’s owner (or their dependent) is an active armed forces member, the case must be stayed at the owner’s request until 180 days after their termination or release from service. 

It also means that seizing agencies must follow the additional procedural requirements in RCW 38.42.050 to prevail by default against an owner serving in the armed forces.

What Can Agencies Do to Prepare?

Agencies should consider updating their legal references and hearing notices, preparing their local municipal court (if applicable), and adjusting case preparation and hearing practices as the bill's January 1, 2026, effective date approaches.

Update legal references

HB 1440 moves several forfeiture procedural requirements from their current RCW location into title 7 RCW. Agencies should update their ordinances, codes, forfeiture pleadings, hearing examiner contracts, etc., as applicable to ensure that these appropriately reference the newly codified RCW chapter and section(s).

Update hearing notices

Agencies should ensure that their seizure and forfeiture notices reflect HB 1440’s new 60- and 120-day deadlines for owners of seized assets to request forfeiture hearings.

Prepare the municipal court

HB 1440’s changes will give property owners the option to have their forfeiture challenges heard by municipal courts in the seizing agency’s jurisdiction. Cities with municipal courts should ensure that the court is prepared to process and hear forfeiture cases in line with this procedural change.

Adjust case preparation and hearing practices

HB 1440 raises a seizing agency’s proof burden to “clear, cogent, and convincing evidence” and requires agencies prove that a seized property owner knew and consented to the unlawful acts supporting forfeiture.

The bill also applies the service member protections in RCW 38.42 to forfeiture cases. Agencies should accordingly adjust their practices related to case evaluation, case preparation, and forfeiture hearings to meet these changes.

Conclusion

Making the above changes can help agencies comply with HB 1440 and keep their civil asset forfeiture practices running smoothly and fairly.