The research used information from a random stratified sample of 146 Federal civil-judicial drug forfeiture cases prosecuted by the United States Attorney's Office of the Northern District of Illinois from 1985 to 1991. The district was selected because it has consistently ranked in the top 15 of the 94 districts in terms of total net deposits to the Assets Forfeiture Fund. The analysis focused on the relative importance of case characteristics, including the type of property seized, the initial estimated value of the asset at the time of confiscation, the precise appraised value, whether the investigation was proactive or reactive, the legal theory used to support the seizure and prosecute the case, the time required to prosecute the case, and the final disposition. Results revealed a concentration on seizing real property with a high value. In addition, real property seizures are preplanned and commonly made under the controversial facilitation statute. These cases more commonly result in either a forfeiture or settlement, but they also have the highest dismissal frequency of all property types. Findings raise serious questions about use and fairness of civil forfeiture. Tables, list of cases cited, and 47 references (Author abstract modified)