The relationship between law enforcement agencies and the funds they accumulate through asset seizures is facing scrutiny in Seward County. The Sheriff’s Office has come under investigation for its financial practices, raising questions about the proper use of forfeiture funds, which are meant to support public interest initiatives rather than subsidize departmental expenses.
According to Alban, “The agency has strong incentives to stop cars and confiscate cash because it helps them offset their budget and lower their salary costs. They’re supposed to be acting in the public interest, not in their own personal financial interest.” The funds seized by Seward County flow to the U.S. Department of Treasury and the U.S. Department of Justice, which can return up to 80% of those funds back to the Sheriff’s Office.
In 2022, the Treasury Department informed the Sheriff’s Office of an impending review of its spending from 2020 to 2022. However, this information was not disclosed to county commissioners at the time, says Hain. By 2024, preliminary findings from this review identified several accounting discrepancies that contravened federal forfeiture guidelines. The Sheriff’s Office had been using forfeiture funds as upfront payments for expenses that were later reimbursed by other federal funds and grants. Additionally, a transfer of $31,600 to another law enforcement agency lacked proper documentation, and there were issues with financial records and accounting processes.
There were further allegations that, during 2021 and 2022, the Sheriff’s Office misused Treasury funds to pay existing employees, contrary to federal guidelines that stipulate forfeiture money can only pay staff filling vacancies due to deputies being assigned to federal task forces. Vance, in an interview, acknowledged, “We moved people into new positions, but they weren’t brand-new employees. That’s why we had to repay it.”
In an undated response to the Treasury, Vance requested a waiver for the misappropriation, promising the error would not recur and highlighting the hiring of new staff members aligned with federal guidelines. He proposed, “If neither of these options are acceptable, we ask that our agencies agree upon a payment plan that would allow the wages to be paid back over a longer period that would be fiscally responsible for the taxpayers of Seward County.”
By May 2025, the federal government had placed the Sheriff’s Office under a “do not spend” directive. Concurrently, Vance sought assistance from county commissioners to fund the salaries of three DARE and school resource officers typically paid with Treasury funds, assuring them the federal money was forthcoming, albeit with uncertain timing. Consequently, county commissioners allocated $480,000 from the sheriff’s general fund to cover these salaries and benefits.
Commissioners were unaware of the compliance review or the “do not spend” status until mid-August, when Hain raised the issue during a commissioners meeting, subsequently reported by The Seward County Independent. Hain remarked, “(The sheriff) knowingly withheld this information. It creates this illusion that they’re trying to hide something … with law enforcement being under extreme public scrutiny, now is not the time to withhold information from the board. Because that looks really bad to the public and to the board.”
***
In April, Seward commissioners engaged Lincoln-based Nesbitt & Associates for an independent audit of county drug funds. The audit reviewed forfeiture spending in both the Sheriff’s and County Attorney’s Offices from July 2023 to April 2025. While the County Attorney’s Office was found compliant, the audit highlighted that 68% of the Sheriff’s Office federal funds, amounting to $858,563, required further examination.
The audit revealed spending on items such as equipment, repairs, utilities, membership dues, subscriptions, and advertising, with insufficient documentation linking these expenses back to drug enforcement efforts. It identified “patterns consistent with operating budget substitution,” a practice prohibited by federal guidelines. Similar to the Treasury’s findings, the audit noted the misuse of forfeiture funds to cover wages and benefits for school resource officers, lacking documentation of their actual duties performed.
