Iowa law enforcement agencies confiscate cash, vehicles and real estate from at least 1,000 people each year as part of a state program in which no proof of crime is required before the government lays claim to personal belongings.

That represents a massive increase since the 1980s, when state and local governments reported fewer than two dozen such cases annually, according to data obtained by The Des Moines Register through a public records request.

Those data detail for the first time how Iowa's civil forfeiture laws are being widely used to pump millions of dollars into local law enforcement agency budgets every year, mostly in uncontested cases. In many instances, no criminal charges are ever filed against the person whose property was seized.

Key findings from the Register's investigation and data analysis include:

More than $55 million in cash, in amounts ranging from 34 cents to nearly $2.6 million, has been seized from 19,000 people since 1985 under Iowa's forfeiture laws.

More than 4,200 automobiles, trucks and motorcycles have been confiscated, including nearly 1,500 in Polk County, since the state began tracking such vehicles in 1991.

Real estate forfeitures are rare. Only 37 have been recorded since 1998. Such seizures are generally far less lucrative, and the properties are often in disrepair and entangled in liens and ownership questions. Still, law enforcement agencies were able to sell the properties for nearly $1.2 million, or an average of $32,000 each.

The full scope of forfeitures using Iowa law remains unknown. Not included in the state data are other valuables, such as guns, jewelry, furniture and artwork seized by local law enforcement agencies under Iowa's civil forfeiture law.

Some lawmakers, civil libertarians and groups that advocate for social justice say modern law enforcement practices have strayed beyond the original intent of Iowa's forfeiture laws.

“The concerning part is that many of these people whose cash is seized have never been charged with a crime,” said Darpana Sheth, an attorney with Institute for Justice, a Virginia-based nonprofit law firm that has studied the civil forfeiture system.

Family hardships ignored?

Dana Steckelberg of Fontanelle says Iowa families such as hers are the victims of what she believes to be law enforcement's overzealous hunger for forfeiture proceeds.

Steckelberg's family vehicle was seized after her husband, Jason, was arrested on drug charges in 2014, even though she insists it was purchased years before with money he received from a disability settlement.

Attorneys advised Steckelberg — who is raising a grandchild while her husband is in prison — against filing an appeal in hopes of getting the 2003 Cadillac DeVille returned.

"They told us it would not probably be worth it since the car was only worth $3,000 to $4,000," Steckelberg told the Register in December 2014. "But it was worth a lot more than that to me because it was our only transportation."

Steckelberg now drives her mother's 1981 Ford Tempo, which she says is in such poor condition she avoids using it for anything other than short trips around town.

Prosecutors are supposed to use forfeiture to deter future criminal activity and should consider the hardship the action would take on family members before confiscating property, according to guidelines from the Iowa County Attorneys Association.

But Steckelberg believes those guidelines are too often ignored.

“With forfeiture, you’re caught in a no-win situation where the state always wins and a family loses,” she said.

Once a supporter, now a critic

Merlin Bartz, a Republican from Grafton who served on a Senate committee that helped approved a state forfeiture reform in 1996, said he has regrets about the way the law has been deployed.

“I don’t feel duped, but I suspect this is an issue of bureaucratic creep,” the former senator said. “Law enforcement started seeing precedence and history of how the law could be used. I think the process in 1996 was noble but the bureaucratic creep may have taken the legislation too far.”

The civil forfeiture system has faced intense criticism in recent years from people like Bartz who contend its widening reach violates constitutional law and erodes the foundation of the nation’s legal system: You're innocent until proven guilty.

Iowa Code says law enforcement agencies must show the property was likely obtained as a result of criminal conduct or was intended to facilitate criminal conduct. Criminal charges, indictments or convictions are not required before law enforcement agencies can seize property.

Databases:

There was little use of forfeiture in the modern American judicial system before the 1970s, when Congress passed anti-crime laws aimed at curbing illegal drug activity, according to a 2008 article published in the University of Southern California’s Review of Law and Social Justice.

But seizures generally were limited in scope and targeted convicted drug kingpins. In 1984, Congress enacted what is known as the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act, which opened the door for forfeiture to be used with all direct and indirect proceeds of drug trafficking. And in 1986, a change in federal law expanded civil forfeiture to include alleged money-laundering activities and essentially any criminal or regulatory violation.

The result was widespread growth in its use. States also adopted their own laws to seize valuables from suspected lawbreakers.

Critics argue it’s done little to help the United States reduce illicit drug use. Drug arrests are up 120 percent since 1984 — from 708,400 to nearly 1.6 million in 2014, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

“I definitely believe the profit motive is the driving force,” said Jason Pye, justice reform director for FreedomWorks, a conservative advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., that has called for nationwide forfeiture reform.

From thousands to millions

The statewide database the Register obtained details the growing popularity of civil forfeiture among state and local law enforcement agencies in Iowa.

It shows that police seized a record $4.9 million in cash along with 129 vehicles using Iowa forfeiture laws in 2014. Last year, those numbers dipped to $3.9 million in cash and 118 vehicles.

By comparison, statewide cash forfeitures totaled about $49,000 in 1986, the first full year in which data was collected. That grew to more than $1.2 million by 1996, the data show.

Iowa forfeiture 101

Some of the cases fueling that growth have captured national attention.

Iowa State Patrol officers seized about $100,000 from two California gamblers in 2013 following an Interstate 80 traffic stop as the men returned home from an Illinois poker tournament. The gamblers not only prevailed in getting most of their money back, but are now suing the state to recover attorney fees.

In another 2013 case, IRS agents froze former Spirit Lake restaurant owner Carole Hinders' bank account and seized nearly $33,000. Hinders, who was never charged with a crime, successfully challenged the forfeiture.

And earlier this year, a lawsuit accused Pottawattamie County officials of widespread forfeiture abuses, including targeting of out-of-state drivers and improper use of a drug-detecting dog to gain access to vehicles.

Approach varies by county

Four of Iowa’s 99 counties collected the bulk of the cashed seized through civil forfeitures — nearly 60 percent of the more than $55 million confiscated under the state's forfeiture law since 1985, the Register’s analysis shows. Those four counties: Polk, Pottawattamie, Scott and Black Hawk.

Vehicle forfeitures were generally concentrated in the same four counties. Those counties, along with Wapello, seized 2,200 vehicles during that time, or 51 percent of the 4,238 seized statewide.

Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said his county's forfeiture totals are the combined result of higher population and good law enforcement work. Sarcone believes forfeitures generally conform to the legislative intent, which was to cripple criminal operations.

Forfeitures initiated by Polk County under the state law have added $18 million in seized cash and the proceeds from nearly 1,500 confiscated vehicles to the budgets of local and state law enforcement agencies, the analysis shows.

“You know, you’re talking about people who profit off of other people’s woe,” Sarcone said, referring to those whose property was seized. “A lot of this revolves around the drug trade, and they’re making money off of people’s addictions and whatever other circumstances they have that leads them into using drugs. They shouldn’t profit from that.”

Still, the statewide database also contains hundreds of examples of cash and other seized assets that do not appear to reflect an effort to dismantle large criminal operations. For example, more than 500 of the cash forfeitures involved sums totaling $50 or less. The Polk County sheriff estimates that the vehicles it seizes fetch an average price of just $915.

Some counties make relatively little use of Iowa's civil forfeiture laws.

INTERACTIVE MAP:Forfeiture concentrations by county

Thirty-nine counties reported seizing $10,000 or less in cash forfeitures and 10 or fewer vehicles from 2010 through March 2016, state records show. That includes Audubon, Adams, Taylor and Wayne counties, where no cash forfeitures were reported.

Guthrie County Attorney Mary Benton represents a county that has used forfeiture to collect less than $10,000 and fewer than 10 vehicles.

Benton said she won’t pursue forfeiture unless it’s part of a criminal case and only in situations where there is a clear connection between the property and the illegal activity.

“It’s just better if it’s part of a criminal case in my opinion,” Benton said. “And I’ve never been accused of using forfeiture unfairly.”

Lawmakers push for changes

Iowa lawmakers from both parties have advocated for forfeiture reform in the last two years. That includes Sen. Joe Bolkcom, D-Iowa City, and Rep. Jake Highfill, R-Johnston, who have supported legislation to end forfeiture except in cases involving criminal convictions.

And, on the federal level, U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, has led an ongoing battle to change the use of forfeiture.

“It’s an indication of aggressive enforcement without any concern of people’s constitutional rights,” Grassley told the Register in June before he introduced federal legislation that would force law enforcement to take more steps to link seized property to criminal activity.

The effort this year at the Iowa Statehouse, Senate File 2166, would have allowed forfeitures only in cases resulting in criminal convictions. It failed to make it through the legislative process, partly after law enforcement personnel voiced concerns that it would take away a tool to help them curtail criminal activities.

State Sen. Charles Schneider, R-West Des Moines, has vowed to bring the bill back next year.

“My main concern is that assets can be forfeited to the state without a person even being charged with a crime, and I think that runs afoul of the Constitution,” Schneider told the Register.