Few legal processes feel as startling as having property seized by the government before any criminal conviction. Washington has long permitted civil asset forfeiture, allowing law enforcement to take property connected to suspected criminal activity through a civil process entirely separate from a criminal case. The civil forfeiture laws governing this practice changed significantly when Governor Ferguson signed House Bill 1440 into law on May 17, 2025. Effective January 1, 2026, these reforms give property owners meaningfully stronger rights and require the government to clear a higher evidentiary bar before taking what belongs to someone else.
What Civil Asset Forfeiture Actually Is
Civil asset forfeiture is a legal mechanism that allows government agencies to seize property because it was used to facilitate a crime, constitutes proceeds of criminal activity, or was purchased with traceable criminal proceeds. Forfeiture is a civil action that is separate and distinct from any related criminal case.
That distinction matters enormously. With limited exceptions, Washington law does not require a criminal conviction before property can be permanently forfeited. A person can have their vehicle, cash, equipment, or real property taken without ever being found guilty of any crime.
That reality has made civil forfeiture one of the more controversial tools in law enforcement's arsenal. Critics have long argued that it creates financial incentives for agencies to seize property and puts innocent owners in the difficult position of proving a negative. HB 1440 is the legislature's response to those concerns and represents what its sponsors called the first phase of meaningful asset forfeiture reform in Washington.
The Higher Burden of Proof Under the New Civil Forfeiture Laws
Perhaps the most significant change in HB 1440 is the higher burden of proof on the government. Previously, many forfeiture statutes required only a preponderance of the evidence, the lowest civil standard, to establish that property was subject to forfeiture.
HB 1440 elevates that standard to clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. This is a meaningfully harder bar for the government to clear. It requires substantially more reliable and convincing proof than a mere probability, which significantly changes the practical dynamics of forfeiture proceedings.
For property owners contesting a seizure, this shift matters. The government must now make a stronger case, and weaker circumstantial connections between property and alleged criminal activity are less likely to survive that standard. Owners who previously faced an uphill evidentiary battle now have more room to mount effective defenses.
Longer Windows to Contest a Seizure
HB 1440 also extends the deadlines for property owners to respond to a seizure notice. Under prior law, a person had 45 days to notify the seizing agency in writing of a claim of ownership for personal property, and 90 days for real property. The new civil forfeiture laws extend those windows to 60 days for personal property and 120 days for real property.
Missing these deadlines results in the property being deemed forfeited, regardless of the merits of any ownership claim. The additional time gives property owners and their attorneys a more realistic opportunity to evaluate the situation, gather documentation, and make an informed decision about how to respond.
The 15-day window for the seizing agency to serve notice of seizure remains in place. That means the clock starts quickly after a seizure occurs. Property owners who receive a notice of seizure should treat it as time-sensitive from the moment it arrives and not assume the extended response window provides unlimited runway to decide what to do.
The Right to Move to Court
One of the most practically important provisions in HB 1440 is the explicit right for any person asserting a claim to remove the matter to a court of competent jurisdiction. Forfeiture proceedings can begin as administrative hearings before the chief law enforcement officer of the seizing agency. This creates an obvious tension: the agency that seized the property presides over the initial challenge to its own seizure.
The right to remove the matter to a district or superior court provides access to a neutral forum with the full procedural protections of civil litigation, including judicial oversight and a proper evidentiary record. This right to court access is meaningful but comes with its own deadline.
The person seeking removal must serve process within 45 days after notifying the seizing agency of their claim. That is a tight window that runs concurrently with the broader response deadlines. Coordinating both steps without missing either requires attention to detail that favors early legal involvement.
Attorney's Fees for Prevailing Claimants
HB 1440 includes a provision that allows property owners who substantially prevail in a forfeiture proceeding to recover reasonable attorney's fees. This is a significant practical change. Before this reform, the cost of contesting a forfeiture could easily exceed the value of the property at stake, creating a perverse incentive to abandon legitimate claims rather than bear the legal expense of challenging a seizure.
The attorney's fees provision changes that calculus. A property owner who mounts a successful defense can now recover legal costs, making it financially rational to contest a seizure and reducing the leverage the government previously held because the process was so expensive to navigate.
Innocent Owner Protections
The new law codifies protections for property owners who had no knowledge of or involvement in the conduct that triggered the seizure. No personal or real property may be forfeited to the extent of an innocent owner's interest when the underlying act or omission was committed without that owner's knowledge or consent.
Community property interests in real property are also protected when the non-offending spouse or domestic partner did not participate in the violation. These protections address scenarios where a family member's actions could otherwise result in the loss of shared property that the other owner had nothing to do with.
These innocent owner provisions reflect a long-overdue recognition that civil forfeiture, when applied without such guardrails, can produce outcomes that are difficult to justify on any fairness rationale. The law now explicitly requires a meaningful connection between the owner's own conduct and the basis for forfeiture.
Navigate Civil Forfeiture Laws with Ease
At Gleam Law, our business law attorneys and litigation lawyers help clients navigate civil asset forfeiture proceedings with a full understanding of the rights and deadlines HB 1440 establishes. Whether you're contesting a seizure, invoking innocent owner defenses, or recovering attorney's fees after a successful challenge, we bring the legal depth these situations demand.
Contact us to discuss your situation and understand your options under Washington's new forfeiture law.
