Asset Forfeiture in 2025: Wyoming Tightens the Standard

Introduction

Asset forfeiture has long been one of law enforcement’s most powerful — and most controversial — tools. A recent Wyoming Supreme Court decision, In re U.S. Currency $54,226 (Mickulin), clarifies that officers and prosecutors must meet a higher evidentiary bar when pursuing forfeiture. Combined with shifting laws across the country, the case highlights a national trend: courts and legislatures are demanding stronger, more disciplined forfeiture cases.

Case Study: Mickulin (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2025)

Ronald Mickulin was stopped in Rawlins, Wyoming, for a broken taillight. The traffic stop escalated when officers discovered a vial of cocaine, marijuana, and cash hidden in his vehicles. Altogether, they seized over $54,000. Mickulin admitted part of the money came from drug sales but also claimed legitimate sources like a 401k.

The State sought forfeiture under Wyoming’s Controlled Substances Act. The trial court granted it, holding the State to a preponderance of the evidence standard. The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed. The statute required clear and convincing evidence, not just a 51% likelihood. The Court stressed that forfeiture strips property and demands heightened proof. Because the lower court applied the wrong standard, the case was remanded.

Street-Level Takeaway: In Wyoming, and in states with similar statutes, forfeiture requires highly probable proof. Officers must document evidence with precision — admissions, corroboration, chain of custody, and financial records must stand up under scrutiny.

The Bigger Picture: State Standards Differ

Mickulin sits within a larger national conversation. States vary widely in how they regulate forfeiture:

• Conviction Requirement: Some states (e.g., Nebraska, New Hampshire) generally require a conviction before forfeiture. Others (like Alabama and Alaska) allow forfeiture without one.

  
  

• Burden of Proof: Wyoming demands clear and convincing evidence. Arizona and Nevada do the same. By contrast, many states still use the lower preponderance standard.

  
  

• Innocent Owner Defense: In most jurisdictions, third-party owners must prove they didn’t know about the crime.

  
  

• Where the Money Goes: Proceeds often fund law enforcement directly. In some states (e.g., Nevada), a portion must be diverted to schools or general funds.

  
  

• Constitutional Limit: After Timbs v. Indiana, every forfeiture must pass the “no excessive fines” test under the Eighth Amendment.

Practical Guidance for Officers

1. Check Your Statute. Wyoming requires clear and convincing evidence; your state may not. Know the rules where you work.

   
   

2. Build for Court. Forfeiture isn’t automatic — trial courts will expect credible testimony, corroboration, and financial proof.

   
   

3. Respect Proportionality. Don’t pursue forfeiture where the value of property grossly exceeds the seriousness of the offense.

   
   

4. Document Thoroughly. Admissions, recordings, receipts, and witness credibility are critical to surviving appellate review.

Conclusion

The Mickulin decision signals a higher bar for forfeiture in Wyoming: clear and convincing evidence is now the rule. For officers, that means treating forfeiture cases with the same rigor as major criminal prosecutions.

Nationally, standards are shifting, with some states tightening requirements and others still operating under looser rules. The message is simple: use forfeiture carefully, document thoroughly, and know your jurisdiction’s law.

Disclaimer

This article is for training and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. Officers should consult agency counsel and follow department policy.