Law enforcement should not be allowed to seize a person’s assets before there is a criminal conviction and a clearly established nexus between someone’s assets and criminal activity.

This very simple set of premises is completely rejected under the system of civil asset forfeiture, a practice which allows law enforcement agencies to take a person’s property or cash with minimal due process and without a criminal conviction ever taking place.

The practice incentivizes the allocation of law enforcement resources to crimes and strategies that maximize the potential for generating revenues that boost the budgets of local police and sheriff’s departments.

In 1992, law enforcement authorities in Ventura County raided the ranch of Donald Scott in search of an alleged marijuana growing operation. There were no drugs, but the early morning raid of the property resulted in the death of Scott. As later revealed, the prospect of seizing the 200-acre property was a major factor in the decision to launch the ill-fated raid.

The incident helped spur lawmakers in 1994 to pass sensible reforms that require a criminal conviction in the seizure of assets up to $25,000 and cap the share of money law enforcement agencies can keep from such seizures at 65 percent.

Under these parameters, law enforcement agencies throughout California still engage in asset forfeiture compliant with state law. In 2015, agencies across the state seized assets worth roughly $50 million, according to a report by state Attorney General Kamala Harris. Topping the list were agencies in Los Angeles County, which seized nearly $9 million in assets, followed by Orange County at $5.8 million.

But asset forfeitures strictly under California law are only part of the system.

The federal government has a so-called equitable sharing program, in which local law enforcement agencies may partner with federal authorities in joint investigations and thus operate outside of the scope of their respective state laws. Through such partnerships only probable cause is necessary and local partners have been eligible for up to 80 percent of revenues.

For law enforcement agencies in California, going the federal route has been the much more lucrative option.

In 2015, the Drug Policy Alliance issued a report discussing how participation in federal asset forfeiture programs has distorted local police departments. In Los Angeles County, the small cities of Vernon, Baldwin Park, Beverly Hills, Gardena, Irwindale, La Verne, Pomona and South Gate netted a combined $43 million in revenues from federal asset forfeiture between 2006 and 2013. Practical consequences included La Verne reducing its police force in that time period while increasing its drug task force.

Meanwhile, the Anaheim Police Department alone has received millions of dollars a year through equitable sharing. In fiscal year 2013 alone, the department received nearly $5 million from equitable sharing. The department has largely spent that money on things like overtime, informants, computers and electronic surveillance equipment.

Last year, state Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, sought to restore some balance to California’s use of civil asset forfeiture. Senate Bill 443 proposed requiring local law enforcement agencies participating in joint operations with the federal government to refrain from receiving seized assets until there was a criminal conviction.

The proposal easily cleared the state Senate, with 38 votes in favor and only one in opposition. This sent the law enforcement lobby into crisis mode. Groups like the California Police Chiefs Association began circulating false claims the bill would effectively end asset forfeitures, while the California District Attorneys Association argued the bill would “weaken law enforcement’s ability to address the scourge of drugs in all of our communities.”

Remarkably, the fear mongering worked, and the Assembly voted 44-24 in opposition, with 12 abstentions. Most Assembly members from Los Angeles and Orange counties opposed or abstained. The bill remains on the inactive file and could be brought up again.

Hopefully lawmakers can someday set aside the financial interests of law enforcement and stand up for due process.