Raleigh is at the center of a renewed debate over civil asset forfeiture after an investigation revealed local agencies seizing cash and property through a federal program that returns a portion of the proceeds to law enforcement. Supporters say the funds help cover equipment costs and reduce taxpayer burden, while critics argue the program creates incentives for policing for profit and could undermine state protections for property owners.
As reported by WRAL Investigates, the controversy escalated after federal prosecutors filed a forfeiture notice on the home and $69,000 seized from a Raleigh firefighter and his wife following an Alcohol Law Enforcement probe. WRAL quoted John Guze of the John Locke Foundation warning that federal equitable sharing rules do not require charging a property owner, which he said can create tempting conditions for abuse.
Federal totals, local stakes
The Department of Justice publishes annual asset forfeiture reports that list equitable sharing payments and other totals. The FY2025 reports were updated Jan. 26, 2026. Reporters used those public records to add up recent distributions to state and local partners and to put Raleigh's share in a national context.
How the federal loophole works
Equitable sharing lets state or local agencies work with federal partners, or have the feds "adopt" a case, so prosecutors can use federal forfeiture rules that are sometimes looser than state law. Research from the Office of Justice Programs and analysis by the Institute for Justice show that agencies in states with tighter forfeiture laws often receive larger federal payouts, a pattern critics say undercuts local safeguards.
Raleigh's receipts and the defense
Local reporting found Raleigh has led the state in federal seizures in recent years, with forfeiture dollars showing up in police spending on tasers, ammunition, rifles and rented vehicles for detective work. In a written response cited by WRAL Investigates, the Raleigh Police Department said federal partnerships "contribute to making Raleigh a safer community" and that the program is run "professionally, lawfully and in a manner consistent with sound public policy." Nash County Sheriff Keith Stone told the investigation, "There's no profit in policing," defending the practice as a way to cover gear costs and free up budget dollars for training and other needs.
Legal implications
Under North Carolina law, civil forfeiture generally requires a criminal conviction before agencies can keep proceeds, a safeguard advocates say is weakened when cases are shifted into federal court through equitable sharing. Local civil rights advocates and legal experts have suggested state measures that would block adoptions or require that forfeiture proceeds be routed to neutral state accounts instead of back into police budgets.
What reformers want
Policy ideas on the table include banning federal adoptions, sending forfeiture revenue into the state general fund or to schools, tightening reporting rules and setting a clear conviction threshold before property can permanently change hands. The Institute for Justice and other reform groups have promoted those steps nationally, and local attorneys say North Carolina lawmakers could close the federal workaround by statute.
Raleigh officials emphasize that federal rules and department policies govern how shared assets are used. However, the investigation has raised questions among residents and reform advocates about whether the current system provides sufficient transparency and protection. The debate is expected to follow any updates to Department of Justice guidance, local budget decisions, and potential state legislative action.
