“I’m not one for more regulation, and this is what this law was,” Lamb said. “I think the voters corrected the problem in the counties that were having issues. You saw some change in sheriffs, and I think that was the first step… We’re working hard to implement a lot more protocols in place to make sure any monies that are given out are appropriate and meet the criteria.”

Among the new law’s most significant changes is raising the burden of proof required for law enforcement when it asks a court to declare a suspect’s property forfeited from “preponderance of the evidence” to “clear and convincing” evidence.

Law enforcement officials interviewed by AZCIR said they didn’t foresee this change having an effect on their seizure operations.

“When the cases are presented to us by the seizing agencies, we’re looking for strong evidence, regardless of the burden of proof, whether it was the previous preponderance or it’s the new clear and convincing,” Krejci said. “The purpose of forfeitures is still there: to remove from criminals the means and motives for committing crimes of financial gain.”

Avelar said the increased burden of proof will likely only come into play in the rare case when a property owner challenges a seizure in court.

The new law also addresses many of the gaps in reporting identified by AZCIR. For example, county attorneys and the attorney general will have to report detailed information about each seizure to the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, including the date, location, property seized, accompanying criminal case and whether the property owner contested the seizure. Before, agencies simply reported aggregated sums of property and cash seized.

While officials generally said they had no problem with additional oversight, Kingman Police Chief Robert DeVries said he was concerned the requirements will put an additional strain on his department’s resources.

“I just want to emphasize, we’re not opposed to transparency, we’re not opposed to accountability, we’re just asking to be within reason,” said DeVries, whose department runs the Mohave Area General Narcotics Enforcement Team. “We understand, as well, that there have been abuses that have occurred with RICO dollars. And we wholeheartedly support holding those individuals accountable for their actions. But don’t penalize and hinder other operations that are in full compliance with the law.”

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Director Andy LeFevre declined to comment on the new law, but told legislators that the reporting requirements in HB 2477 will be difficult for his state agency to develop and enforce without additional funding. The Legislature did not provide for any increases to ACJC’s budget.

Avelar said the additional information will allow lawmakers and the public to better understand forfeiture.

“Now we will begin to get a better picture of not just the number of forfeitures, but also what those forfeitures are for,” he said, adding that, “as we get more information about what’s going on with forfeiture, we see more and more disconnects from the sort of story that law enforcement likes to tell.”

AZCIR’s January analysis found that half of the money spent from seized funds during the five years examined went to pay police salaries and cover “other operating” expenses.

Law enforcement agencies will also now have to formally request permission from county attorneys to use seized funds. This clarifies an ambiguous provision in Arizona’s property seizure laws that gave county attorneys control over the accounts, but didn’t specify what oversight power they had. County attorney offices must now get approval from the county’s board of supervisors for expenditures made for their own benefit. The same new provision also applies to small counties where all seized funds are pooled together for the benefit of all agencies in the county.

Lamb said he was concerned that the board approval requirement would hamper investigations that depend on secrecy, and said a public vote authorizing the spending could create problems. Pinal County pools most of its money together into one account, meaning any expenditure from the account would need to be approved by the board of supervisors.

“There’s a lot of times where investigations move fast — you need to be able to do things quickly,” Lamb said. “Now that you have to put it in front of board, it becomes public information now. A lot of times, RICO funds were used to do investigations, to buy drugs… so that you could actually get some convictions, and now if you have to go through the board, most agencies aren’t going to do that.”

The new law also requires the attorney general to audit its use of the fund, although no similar audit provision is in place for money spent by local agencies through county attorneys’ offices.

Emily L. Mahoney contributed to this article.