Imagine a place where the government can seize property from people who have not broken the law. The police, sheriffs and prosecutors can auction their property off and use the proceeds to pay their own salaries.

But this isn’t a Third World dictatorship. It’s California.

Empowered by “civil forfeiture” laws, the government can seize – and keep – cash, cars and real estate without ever filing criminal charges. Thankfully, state Sen. Holly Mitchell has authored Senate Bill 443 to curb this appalling police power. SB443 already passed by a staggering 38-1 vote, and now awaits a key hearing before the Assembly Committee on Public Safety on July 14.

The bill takes aim at “equitable sharing,” a federal forfeiture program that lets state and local agencies keep up to 80 percent of the proceeds of a forfeited property, even if that would bypass the state’s tougher restrictions.

Since 2008, law enforcement agencies in California have generated and spent over $380 million in equitable sharing funds – the highest in the nation. Almost $60 million went to salaries and overtime.

Surprisingly, many small towns in Southern California have reaped obscene amounts of federal forfeiture revenue, according to a Drug Policy Alliance report released in April.

Take South Gate, which has fewer than 100,000 residents. From 2006 to 2013, South Gate received over $8 million in equitable sharing funds, topping far larger cities like Oakland, Sacramento, San Jose and San Francisco. In recent years, South Gate even slashed its police force, all while doubling the number of officers who handle forfeiture cases.

But SB443 would gore these cash cows. If enacted, it would ban local and state agencies from receiving federal forfeiture proceeds unless prosecutors first convict a defendant in criminal court. No conviction? No confiscation.

This reform would sharply reduce the incentives for law enforcement to prey on innocent Californians. Tony Jalali was one such victim. The owner of an office building in Anaheim worth $1.5 million, Jalali once rented space to a medical marijuana dispensary, which was – and still is – legal under state law. Law enforcement never charged Jalali with a crime, and he never bought or sold marijuana. Nevertheless, his real estate soon became a tempting target.

An undercover Anaheim officer bought $37 worth of cannabis from that dispensary. On that basis alone, the Drug Enforcement Administration partnered with the Anaheim Police Department and tried to forfeit Jalali’s property. Under state law, prosecutors must first obtain a criminal conviction before they can forfeit real estate. But because the DEA participated, Jalali’s case was prosecuted under federal law, which has no such protection.

Had they succeeded, police in Anaheim could have received up to 80 percent of the proceeds. Fortunately, after the Institute for Justice defended Jalali’s property rights in a lawsuit, the federal government dropped the case in 2013. But unless the law is changed, law enforcement agencies are incentivized to circumvent California’s state sovereignty.

In addition to tackling equitable sharing, SB443 would implement vital procedural protections in state court. Californians would need to be convicted of a crime before they could lose their property. Meanwhile, the bill would institute new notice requirements, establish court-appointed counsel for indigent owners and allow those who “substantially prevail” in a civil forfeiture case to recover attorney’s fees.

Reform is gaining traction. New Mexico recently abolished civil forfeiture and, just as crucially, now bans transferring seized property to federal agencies, unless the property is worth at least $50,000. After passing the state legislature unanimously, the bill was signed by Republican Gov. Susana Martinez, herself a former district attorney and twice-named New Mexico’s “Prosecutor of the Year.”

The government cannot treat citizens like ATMs. Californians must no longer forfeit their rights.

Nick Sibilla is a writer at the Institute for Justice.