Ming Ton Liu’s story highlights the problems with civil asset forfeiture.

Liu, a Chinese-born American citizen, had $75,195 seized from him by a sheriff’s deputy at a traffic stop last year—and he was never charged with any crime. Using civil asset forfeiture, law enforcement officials can seize cash or other property they believe is related to a crime.

Liu planned to use the money to purchase a restaurant, but the deal fell through because it took him 10 months to get his money back from the police.

USA Today highlighted Liu’s story in an editorial last week. “Civil asset forfeiture is government at its absolute worst — intimidating helpless citizens for its own benefit,” stated the editorial. “It needs to go away.”

USA Today is right: State and federal forfeiture laws need to be reformed.

Civil asset forfeiture is a legal tool that allows law enforcement agencies to seize property if it is suspected of being involved in criminal activity. In essence, if police believe your money, car or other personal property was obtained through or used in a crime, they may seize it, regardless of whether you are convicted of–or charged with–a crime. And if the forfeiture is successful – which they usually are – the agency that seized the property gets to keep as much as 100 percent of the proceeds as pure profit.

The procedure was developed to make it easier for police to curb organized crime and the use of ill-gotten gains, but numerous cases of abuse have come to light of late. The New York Times recently reported that the IRS regularly seizes control of personal bank accounts without convicting or even charging the account holders. A couple in Philadelphia had their home seized by the police because their son, unbeknownst to his parents, had been selling heroin out of the home.

Police in various states have admitted to using seized assets to buy things like margarita makers for office parties, Zamboni ice resurfacing machines and a personal home security system for a district attorney. The Heritage Foundation has highlighted numerous cases of abuse like these. And, on Dec. 8, the Heritage Foundation will co-host an event in Austin, Texas, on the subject with Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Reforms are developing at the federal and state levels. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., has introduced legislation in the House and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has introduced legislation in the Senate that would, among other things, require federal law enforcement authorities to produce clear and convincing evidence to a judge before making seizures. And just this week, the District of Columbia passed comprehensive reforms of its forfeiture laws, as several states also have done.

Civil asset forfeiture is giving Americans a reason to fear the law, and leaving it unreformed will only add to already existing distrust of government. Hopefully with increased media attention and calls for reform from government leaders, Congress and the states will move toward constructive changes to our civil asset forfeiture laws.