Everyone is focused closely on elections, given that it's an even-numbered year. But there's actually still a lot of policy being made at the state level.

Specifically, more and more states are moving to do something about civil forfeiture, the process by which law enforcement agencies at all levels of government have been taking and keeping people's property, often without even charging them a crime, let alone convicting them. Just within the last fortnight, four Republican-controlled states have taken such action.

In Wyoming, the state legislature last month reacted to a high-profile case in which the state took more than $90,000 in cash from a driver who was just passing through. Phil Parhamovich was pulled over for failing to signal a lane change and not wearing a seat belt. The officer making the stop arrested and interrogated him, and discovered the money hidden in a speaker. Parhamovich, who was later represented by the property rights nonprofit Institute for Justice, said he planned to use the money to buy a music studio in Wisconsin, but the officer confiscated it on the supposition that it must have been the proceeds of criminal activity.

Parhamovich did get his money back, eventually. But the state legislature recognized the story's deeply un-American nature and voted to further tighten new rules on forfeitures that it had just passed in 2016. The governor, Matt Mead, had been a skeptic of civil forfeiture reforms as recently as 2015, when he vetoed an earlier bill. But he signed this one.

In Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker signed off on a reform that restricts the practice. The bill goes further than most other states in that it requires a criminal conviction, but IJ argues that it has a critical loophole that will allow small-dollar seizures to continue. Specifically, it lets police keep assets if their owners fail to contest forfeitures, which in some cases they might do just because it costs too much to fight. The bill was bipartisan, thanks to four Democrats joining all Republicans in the state Senate to support it.

In Idaho, Gov. Butch Otter finally signed a modest reform to civil forfeiture two weeks ago. That law won't end the practice, but it will require reporting of law enforcement's use of civil forfeiture, including the value of the property taken and whether criminal charges are filed. Forfeitures of cars will also no longer be permitted for mere drug possession charges, and courts will be able to veto forfeitures they find unjustifiable.

This was a big deal in Boise because last year, Otter had vetoed a similarly modest civil forfeiture reform bill that the legislature had passed overwhelmingly, and he did it after they had already adjourned so that they couldn't override his veto.

Finally, the latest news is that Kansas has passed a law requiring transparency in the civil forfeiture process. As IJ's Nick Sibilla describes it:



Agencies must report where and when a seizure occurred, the value of the property seized, if any criminal charges were filed in connection with the seizure, the total cost of the forfeiture action, and the amount of proceeds generated from a forfeited property.

Law enforcement agencies will also have to report their forfeiture fund balance, the total amount of deposits, and list, by category, any forfeiture-fund expenditures that were made.

All seizure, forfeiture, and forfeiture fund records will be sent to a new repository and public website that will be created by the Kansas Bureau of Investigation.

To ensure compliance with the new reporting requirements, the state can suspend filing forfeiture proceedings for any property that was seized by a noncompliant agency.

This is a substantial increase in transparency, because previously IJ's public records request on civil forfeitures just by the Kansas Highway Patrol took five months to fulfill. The new website, if it indeed goes up, will take less than five minutes to produce the same information about all law enforcement agencies in the state. The Kansas law will also make it a lot easier to file a claim to get your property back if it's wrongfully forfeited.

The Kansas law doesn't require a criminal conviction to take property, but it might set the stage someday for a law that does if the new website helps raise awareness of how civil forfeiture is abused.

According to IJ, 28 states have passed reforms of some kind to their civil forfeiture process since 2014, when a Washington Post series brought the issue to the attention of a much larger audience.

And all in all, if conservatives have a limited time in office before the coming elections, as I believe they do, they can be very proud to spend it working on protecting the property rights of middle-to-lower-class people who find themselves under police suspicion.