Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., wants to make it harder for police departments to seize accused criminals' possessions.

His Deterring Undue Enforcement by Protecting Rights of Citizens from Excessive Searches and Seizures (DUE PROCESS) Act would give citizens an avenue for contesting police seizure of their assets or property and require the government to make additional notifications to citizens before seizing their property.

It would also entitle property owners to an initial hearing, during which they can immediately reclaim confiscated goods if government agents did not follow procedure when they seized them. It also increases the threshold governments must meet in proving that seizure is warranted.

Sensenbrenner told the Washington Examiner that too many police departments use the money they seize and proceeds from the sales of seized property as a "slush fund" to bolster their bottom lines.

The law is not intended to be a "way to expand the budgets of various law enforcement agencies," Sensenbrenner said.

In fact, the Justice Department expressly forbids police departments from using the revenue generated by confiscated property to cover personnel salaries, he noted.

He concedes seizures are an important tool for crime fighting, but they are "also vulnerable to abuse."

The current structure has a warped side effect of tempting law enforcement agents to seize as much as possible and keep the possessions so their departments can use the proceeds to make up for budget shortfalls, Sensenbrenner said.

Sensenbrenner wrote to former Attorney General Loretta Lynch late last year about the issue.

"I continue to worry about conflicts of interest with federal forfeiture and the equitable sharing program," he told her. "Forfeiture is a valuable law enforcement tool, but you don't have to be Adam Smith to recognize that allowing law enforcement to profit from seizing goods provides a strong incentive for them to seize private property."

He said current law has created "an outright assault on private property rights."

Without his legislation, innocent civilians can end up spending far more money trying to retrieve their goods than the property is actually worth, Sensenbrenner said. That reality forces many to stop trying to get their property back.

Sensenbrenner said his problem with the way the program is carried out is not a dig at police.

"My efforts to reform forfeiture are not an attack on law enforcement, but rather an honest effort to square the forfeiture program with constitutionally guaranteed property rights and public expectations," he told Lynch.

He asked her to clarify why it seems the Justice Department forbids using program funds for salaries, but then seems to show departments how to get around the rule.

Attached to his letter was a DOJ presentation that "first describes the restrictions, but later spells out how to avoid them," he wrote.

Lynch never replied to his letter, even though he asked her to do so by Dec. 29.

Sensenbrenner said he is confident that his bill, which he plans to reintroduce by the end of the month, will become law this Congress.

The Judiciary Committee, which he once led, approved it, but then it stalled and didn't reach the floor before the 114th Congress adjourned in December.

"It started up with a bang and ended up with a fizz," he conceded.

But House leadership, specifically Speaker Paul Ryan, Sensenbrenner's fellow Wisconsinite, is on board and have assured him it will land on the House floor, he said.

Sensenbrenner is hopeful the House will pass it before Congress adjourns for its annual August recess, he said.