A new report from American Civil Liberties Union says the federal government’s civil asset-forfeiture program disproportionately affects minorities and poor people.

The program allows law enforcement agencies to seize cash and property from suspects without an arrest or conviction.

The advocacy group found that almost half of the seizures by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in California involve people with Latino surnames, calling it an “ongoing attack” on people of color.

Federal drug officials said they had not been given a chance to review the group’s analysis, but that the pattern seems to simply reflect their fight against Latin American drug cartels.

The ACLU provided The San Diego Union-Tribune an advance copy of the study. Local law enforcement agencies who participate in the program declined to comment on a summary of findings, saying they would wait until the report is released today.

As much as 85 percent of the assets seized is paid to agencies that are based in communities where the majority of residents are people of color, the ACLU study said.

The 10-page report found that California counties with higher per-capita seizure rates had annual household incomes that lagged the state median.

“Civil asset forfeiture was originally created to take away booty from drug ‘kingpins,’” the report says. “But the practice has been perverted into an ongoing attack on Californians who can’t afford to fight the government in court, a burden that falls disproportionately on low-income people and people of color.”

Federal drug officials said the ACLU findings are linked to their focus on organized drug smugglers.

“DEA’s primary focus is to investigate the major drug cartels and other criminal organizations who are smuggling, transporting, manufacturing and distributing drugs, and asset seizures result from those investigations,” Amy Roderick of the San Diego DEA field office said in a statement.

ACLU researchers also noted that based on caseload, all of the top 12 agencies participating in the federal seized-assets program are based in San Diego County.

In her statement, Roderick said the high numbers in this region are due to shared regional participation in drug-fighting efforts that allocate confiscated assets by proportion.

“That number does not change on any individual asset forfeited — it remains constant,” she wrote. “Therefore you will see the same participants sharing in all ... forfeitures.”

The border region also is part of a federal law enforcement zone known as a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, or HIDTA, which may explain the increased caseloads.

According to the study, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department led all state law enforcement agencies in terms of number of seizures, with 1,511 between 2001 and 2014, netting the department $6.3 million.

San Diego police generated $6.8 million from 1,498 seizures over the same period, the ACLU report said. The San Diego County District Attorney’s Office was third in the state, recording 1,342 cases that netted $2.2 million for prosecutors.

The Los Angeles sheriff’s and police departments received the most revenue from the program, $24.3 million and $18.4 million, respectively. The two agencies combined participated in 939 cases over 14 years, fewer than police in Carlsbad and Escondido. They netted more money per seizure.

Under federal forfeiture rules, the receiving agencies may spend the proceeds on virtually any enforcement-related expense.

In recent years, San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore directed millions of dollars in seized assets to overtime pay and building improvements. District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis spent proceeds on travel and a banquet. San Diego police paid helicopter insurance premiums.

“We realize asset forfeiture is a topic of priority right now and welcome the chance to respond,” Sheriff’s Department spokeswoman Jan Caldwell said. “Unfortunately, we cannot do so accurately or effectively until we have seen the ACLU publication, its sources and how the conclusions were drawn.”

San Diego police and the District Attorney’s Office also declined to comment on the ACLU findings.

The ACLU report relied on its own analyses as well as data previously published by the U.S. Department of Justice , the U.S. Census Bureau, DEA, the Washington Post, the nonprofit groups Drug Policy Alliance and Center for American Progress and other sources, the study said.

Instituted in the 1980s as a way to combat a rising tide of illegal drugs entering the United States, the federal asset-forfeiture program allows local law enforcement agencies to keep 80 percent of whatever cash and property they seize from drug suspects in partnership with federal agents.

Officers are permitted to seize cash and property they suspect may be profits from criminal activity even if no charges are filed. People whose assets are confiscated may apply to have their money returned, but lawyers say the process can be slow and expensive.

The value of government-seized property has soared over the years, from less than $100 million in 1983 to more than $4.5 billion in 2012, according to the Drug Policy Alliance, which analyzed civil asset forfeitures in a 2014 study.

The ACLU has made confronting what it sees as abuses of asset-forfeiture rules by police and sheriff’s departments in California a priority.

Among other things, the ACLU hosted panel discussions on the issue and is working to pass legislation that would eliminate incentives for state law enforcement agencies to participate in the federal program.

Under state law, a criminal conviction is required for police to take property valued at less than $25,000, one reason local law enforcers team up with federal agencies to seize assets.

“California should be following California law, not circumventing it under federal law so they can keep more of the money,” said Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, the ACLU of California policy director. “We have to strike a balance between due process and the activities of police.”

The ACLU study cites several case studies from people who had their money confiscated even though they were not arrested or convicted of a crime.

In one case, a food-truck owner who had $10,000 in cash taken by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies without being arrested hired a lawyer. A judge ordered the money returned, but by then the money had been transferred to federal jurisdiction.

“At that point, he was advised by his attorney to drop the case because fighting the U.S. Government is too expensive and has been known to morph from asset forfeiture into deportation of relatives or IRS involvement,” the study said.

In 2014, the owner of a janitorial service was pulled over by L.A. sheriff’s deputies, who seized $18,000 in cash she had withdrawn to pay her employees, the report said. The woman hired an attorney and won a refund of her money, but the process took two years.

San Francisco lawyer Dale Major represents a teenager who last year was in a minor accident while on his way to buy a car. Responding officers searched the car and found a small amount of marijuana, then seized the $4,000 his client had to pay for the car.

“The way the process is now, you’re assumed guilty and you have to prove your innocence,” said Major, whose case was recounted in the ACLU report. “There should be a more streamlined process than putting people with limited means, and in some cases limited education, into a very complicated legal process.”

Major said his client, an 18-year-old Asian man, is still trying to recover his $4,000. He walks or takes the bus to his job.