Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 15
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 5822 (2026)

Procedure

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Filing of petition. 
[PL 2021, c. 454, §6 (RP).]
2.  Jurisdiction and venue. 
[PL 2021, c. 454, §7 (RP).]
3.  Type of action. 
[PL 2021, c. 454, §8 (RP).]
4.  Hearings. 
[PL 2021, c. 454, §9 (RP).]
5.  Default proceedings. 
[PL 2021, c. 454, §10 (RP).]
6.  Preliminary process.  Any Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court or the Superior Court, Judge of the District Court or justice of the peace may issue, at the request of the attorney for the State, ex parte, any preliminary order or process as is necessary to seize or secure the property for which forfeiture is or will be sought and to provide for its custody. That order may include an order to a financial institution or to any fiduciary or bailee to require the entity to impound any property in its possession or control and not to release it except upon further order of the court. Process for seizure of the property may issue only upon a showing of probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture under section 5821. The application for process and the issuance, execution and return of process is subject to applicable state law. Any property subject to forfeiture under this section may be seized upon process, except that seizure without the process may be made when:  
A. The seizure is incident to an arrest with probable cause, a search under a valid search warrant or an inspection under a valid administrative inspection warrant;   [PL 1987, c. 420, §2 (NEW).]
B. The property subject to seizure has been the subject of a prior judgment in favor of the State in a forfeiture proceeding under this section or any other provision of the laws of this State, any other state or the United States;   [PL 1987, c. 420, §2 (NEW).]
C. There is probable cause to believe that the property has been directly or indirectly dangerous to health or safety; or   [PL 1987, c. 420, §2 (NEW).]
D. There is probable cause to believe that the property has been used or is intended to be used in violation of any criminal law of this State, any other state or the United States.   [PL 1987, c. 420, §2 (NEW).]
[RR 1999, c. 2, §18 (COR); RR 1999, c. 2, §19 (AFF).]
7.  Rules.  After January 1, 1988, the prosecution of proceedings under this chapter shall be governed by rules adopted or amended by the Attorney General, pursuant to the Maine Administrative Procedure Act, Title 5, chapter 375. These rules shall provide standards for prosecution, settlement, approval of settlement and equitable transfer of forfeited property.  
[PL 1987, c. 420, §2 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1987, c. 420, §2 (NEW). PL 1987, c. 648 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 736, §26 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 302, §4 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 461, §§1,2 (AMD). RR 1999, c. 2, §18 (COR). RR 1999, c. 2, §19 (AFF). PL 1999, c. 408, §1 (AMD). PL 2021, c. 454, §§6-10 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1991–2019 · leading case: State v. One 1981 Chevrolet Monte Carlo, 1999 ME 69 (Me. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. One 1981 Chevrolet Monte Carlo, 1999 ME 69 (Me. 1999). · cites it 5× “[¶ 3] Subsequently, the State petitioned the court pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 5822 (Supp.1998) to order forfeiture of the Monte Carlo and the U.”
Jones v. Greene, 946 S.W.2d 817 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). “§ 60-4113(g) (1994); Me. Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 15, § 5822(4) (West Supp.”
State of Maine v. Jerry Philogene, 2018 ME 126 (Me. 2018). · cites it 4× “See 15 M.R.S. § 5822(3) (2017). 12 In analyzing the federal civil forfeiture statute, the First Circuit has held that the government must, by a preponderance of the evidence, establish “a ‘substantial connection’ between the currency and a narcotics offense.”
State v. Philogene, 193 A.3d 789 (Me. 2018). · cites it 5× “See 15 M.R.S. § 5822(3) (2017). In analyzing the federal civil forfeiture statute, the First Circuit has held that the government must, by a preponderance of the evidence, establish "a 'substantial connection' between the currency and a narcotics offense.”
State v. One Uzi Semi-Automatic 9mm Gun, 589 A.2d 31 (Me. 1991). “) ordering forfeiture of eight items to the State pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 5822 (Supp.1990). We affirm the judgment as to seven of the eight items ordered forfeited by the Superior Court.”
State of Maine v. Schutz (Me. Super. Ct 2019). · cites it 2× “§ 5826 rather than requiring the State to pursue a civil forfeiture under 15 M.R.S. § 5822. The court disagrees. Title 15 M.”
State of Maine v. Jackson (Me. Super. Ct 2000). · cites it 5× “§5824(3), which set forth the Town’s "Approval" for the transfer of the Defendant In Rem, or a portion thereof, to the City/Town of Brunswick, Maine; and WHEREAS, the Court finds from the pleadings that the contribution of the Town of Brunswick Police Department in the related…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 5822(3) — 3 cases
State of Maine v. Jerry Philogene, 2018 ME 126 (Me. 2018). “See 15 M.R.S. § 5822(3) (2017). 12 In analyzing the federal civil forfeiture statute, the First Circuit has held that the government must, by a preponderance of the evidence, establish “a ‘substantial connection’ between the currency and a narcotics offense.”
State v. Philogene, 193 A.3d 789 (Me. 2018). “See 15 M.R.S. § 5822(3) (2017). In analyzing the federal civil forfeiture statute, the First Circuit has held that the government must, by a preponderance of the evidence, establish "a 'substantial connection' between the currency and a narcotics offense.”
State of Maine v. Schutz (Me. Super. Ct 2019). “§ 5826 rather than requiring the State to pursue a civil forfeiture under 15 M.R.S. § 5822. The court disagrees. Title 15 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 5822(4) — 2 cases
State v. One 1981 Chevrolet Monte Carlo, 1999 ME 69 (Me. 1999). “[¶ 3] Subsequently, the State petitioned the court pursuant to 15 M.R.S.A. § 5822 (Supp.1998) to order forfeiture of the Monte Carlo and the U.”
Jones v. Greene, 946 S.W.2d 817 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). “§ 60-4113(g) (1994); Me. Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 15, § 5822(4) (West Supp.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 5822(4)(A) — 2 cases
State of Maine v. Jerry Philogene, 2018 ME 126 (Me. 2018). “See 15 M.R.S. § 5822(3) (2017). 12 In analyzing the federal civil forfeiture statute, the First Circuit has held that the government must, by a preponderance of the evidence, establish “a ‘substantial connection’ between the currency and a narcotics offense.”
State v. Philogene, 193 A.3d 789 (Me. 2018). “See 15 M.R.S. § 5822(3) (2017). In analyzing the federal civil forfeiture statute, the First Circuit has held that the government must, by a preponderance of the evidence, establish "a 'substantial connection' between the currency and a narcotics offense.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 5822(5) — 2 cases
State v. Philogene, 193 A.3d 789 (Me. 2018). “See 15 M.R.S. § 5822(3) (2017). In analyzing the federal civil forfeiture statute, the First Circuit has held that the government must, by a preponderance of the evidence, establish "a 'substantial connection' between the currency and a narcotics offense.”
State of Maine v. Jerry Philogene, 2018 ME 126 (Me. 2018). “See 15 M.R.S. § 5822(3) (2017). 12 In analyzing the federal civil forfeiture statute, the First Circuit has held that the government must, by a preponderance of the evidence, establish “a ‘substantial connection’ between the currency and a narcotics offense.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 5822(6) — 2 cases
State of Maine v. Jerry Philogene, 2018 ME 126 (Me. 2018). “See 15 M.R.S. § 5822(3) (2017). 12 In analyzing the federal civil forfeiture statute, the First Circuit has held that the government must, by a preponderance of the evidence, establish “a ‘substantial connection’ between the currency and a narcotics offense.”
State v. Philogene, 193 A.3d 789 (Me. 2018). “See 15 M.R.S. § 5822(3) (2017). In analyzing the federal civil forfeiture statute, the First Circuit has held that the government must, by a preponderance of the evidence, establish "a 'substantial connection' between the currency and a narcotics offense.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.