Two state lawmakers introduced legislation Tuesday to curb the wide use of civil asset forfeiture in Alabama.

The legislation, which is co-sponsored by state Sen. Arthur Orr (R-Decatur) and Rep. Arnold Mooney (R-Birmingham), would abolish civil asset forfeiture in Alabama in the absence of a criminal conviction.

"I thought we had always required a criminal conviction before seizing someone's property. I wasn't aware that wasn't the case until two years ago, and that's the reason I filed a bill last year and why I intend to do so again this year," Orr told AL.com Thursday. "My bill will first require a criminal conviction, and that's extremely important to have."

The legislation would also ensure that there is a clear, efficient mechanism for innocent property owners to challenge civil asset forfeiture, and would require agencies to report all seizures and release information about how forfeited proceeds are spent. Two other states have already passed similar laws in recent years.

The introduction of the bill coincided with the release of a new study by the Southern Poverty Law Center and Alabama Appleseed Center for Law and Justice outlining the extent of civil asset forfeiture's impacts in Alabama.

The review of court records in 1,100 cases involving civil asset forfeiture in 14 Alabama counties in 2015 found that in a quarter of the cases, the person whose property was seized was never charged with a crime in connection with the civil forfeiture action. The property owner lost 84 percent of those cases against people who were not charged with related crimes, yielding more than $676,000 for law enforcement agencies.

The study goes on to tell the story of Clanton 39-year-old Robert Bradford, who told AL.com Friday that he believes his step-father, Royce Anthony Williams, would likely still be alive if such a law was in place a decade ago. Williams killed himself on May 26, 2009, in an attempt to keep law enforcement from seizing the home he shared with Bradford's mother in connection with an investigation stemming from a July 2007 raid during which they found marijuana plants that Williams said he grew for personal use.

Prosecutors did not buy that explanation and law enforcement officers seized thousands of dollars, two Harley-Davidson motorcycles and other property from Williams, alleging that the marijuana was tied to drug dealing by Williams. They also went after the house where he would eventually take his own life.

In the end, the family kept the home and Bradford lives there today. But Williams died and Bradford said the financial impacts of the investigation and seizure of other assets continue to plague him.

"Royce would probably still be alive and monetarily I probably would be fine. I'm not hungry but I'm in a situation where if I was out of work for two weeks I would be in trouble," Bradford said Friday. "It's pretty bad. It was really hard on my mom because she basically was dying of cancer alone after he died."

Bradford believes that protections should be put in place to ensure that law enforcement agencies in Alabama can no longer seize assets from people who have not been convicted of a crime.

"[The legislation] would remove civil forfeiture but leave criminal forfeiture in its place," Frank Knaack, executive director of Alabama Appleseed, said Monday. "What that would do is ensure that people who have committed a crime cannot profit off that crime but innocent property owners who have not committed a crime have a way to get that property back."

Bradford said he thinks that the practice destroys lives and has lasting negative impacts on folks who should never have been in trouble with the law in the first place.

"People's stuff can be taken and them not even be found guilty, the charges get dropped or they are found not guilty, but their car and their house or whatever is still gone. So whether they're good cops or bad cops, that tool shouldn't be available," Bradford said.

The SPLC/Appleseed study found that in half of the civil asset forfeiture cases it looked at statewide, the amount of cash seized by law enforcement was less than $1,372, which belies the oft-repeated argument that civil asset forfeiture is mainly used as a tool to go after cartels and major criminals, according to Knaack.

"In Alabama, we have a process where the government can seize and take your property without even charging you with a crime," he said. "The way it was sold was as a way to go after drug kingpins ... But the report shows that it's not just being used to go after drug kingpins, it's actually being used to go after ordinary Alabamians."

The study also explored the disproportionate impact that Alabama's civil asset forfeiture practice has on black residents and people who were never charged with anything other than marijuana-related crimes.

In 64 percent of the civil asset forfeiture cases the researchers looked at the defendant was African-American, despite the fact that only 27 percent of the state's population is black.

And in 55 percent of the asset forfeiture cases in which criminal charges were filed, the defendants were charged with marijuana crimes. In 18 percent of those cases, the charge was simple marijuana and/or paraphernalia possession.

"When you put all this together, civil asset forfeiture has been a tool that has harmed lower-income Alabamians and people of color in Alabama," Knaack said.