Greenville Police Chief Ken Miller on Thursday defended his department’s use of civil asset forfeiture and blasted a bill that proposes to abolish civil forfeiture in the state as too sweeping in scope.

Miller said the bill as originally proposed would empower criminals and harm public safety.

A House Judiciary subcommittee added an amendment to address concerns of Miller and others in law enforcement. The subcommittee then gave the bill a 5-0 favorable review.

It is set to be debated by the full House Judiciary committee next week.

Miller’s comments came during a public hearing for the bill that would enact comprehensive reform to the state’s system of civil asset forfeiture, which allows law enforcement to seize cash and property from people without having to charge or convict that person of a related crime. Forfeiture is commonly used during illegal drug or gambling investigations.

The intent of the law, which South Carolina expanded in the late 1980s and early 1990s to fight the war on drugs, is to provide law enforcement with a tool to collect proceeds from drug sales or money-laundering operations.

TAKEN, an investigation by The Greenville News, found that agencies statewide had collected more than $17 million over three years in forfeiture revenue, the bulk of which goes back to the law enforcement agencies who seized it. In 19 percent of cases, no accompanying criminal charges were found, and in nearly 800 cases where charges were filed, the person was not convicted.

SC police chiefs association says forfeiture reform bill 'reaches too far'

Miller, speaking on behalf of 246 police chiefs in the state’s police chiefs association, said the association wants to collaborate with lawmakers who want to improve the forfeiture law and provide greater protection for those who have assets seized by police, but he said the House bill “reaches too far and tilts the table of community safety in favor of those who would bring harm to our neighborhoods, our families and our children.”

He said proceeds distributed to police through forfeiture go toward public safety and provide resources to benefit communities and police investigations.

“We believe very firmly that diverting forfeited assets differently than they are now would be a serious mistake, would endanger police officers and deputies throughout our state, and would deny our local agencies of resources, equipment and training we desperately need to promote the safety and welfare of our communities, resources that our governing bodies cannot otherwise provide,” Miller said.

The crux of the issue, legislators said after the hearing, is what to do with money from forfeitures.

Reform advocates say returning proceeds from seizures to the police that made the seizure creates an incentive for police to seize cash or property.

The current system has shifted from the intent to target from criminal enterprises and drug traffickers toward drug users or, in some cases, those who weren’t found with drugs at all, the TAKEN investigation found. In more than 2,000 instances across the state where cash was taken between 2014 and 2016, police seized less than $500, the investigation found.

SC lawmakers renewed reform efforts in wake of Taken investigation

Lawmakers who renewed efforts to reform the state’s civil forfeiture law in the wake of The Greenville News investigation said they wanted to work with law enforcement on reform efforts, but key to the issue is removing the incentive for police to self-fund in an undemocratic way, said Rep. Alan Clemmons, R-Myrtle Beach, who proposed the bill.

For too long, he said, law enforcement has been allowed to bypass the Constitutional and democratic way of funding police operations using forfeiture. Police should be funded by their governing authorities, not by forfeiture proceeds, he said.

“It’s time for that to come back under constitutional control, democratic control,” he said.

“Of course, there’s great push-back from law enforcement,” he said. “I expected that. I understand that. It’s a hard thing to sever that tie to the purse strings, being able to self-fund. But that ability to self-fund incentivizes the inappropriate activity that The Greenville News has so well documented.”

Jarrod Bruder, executive director of the South Carolina Sheriff's Association, reiterated Thursday that they're willing to adjust thresholds of drug weights that would allow for forfeiture, and also to place limits on the minimum amount seized to discourage officers from seizing small amounts of money.

Bruder said the reform bill has more than 100 co-sponsors because they've been told what's in the bill and haven't actually studied the bill for themselves. He said it's been difficult to gauge how many members want to abolish forfeiture altogether and how many want to refine the existing law but keep civil forfeiture in place.

"I think the overwhelming majority of the General Assembly wants to refine the civil asset forfeiture process, not do away with it," Bruder said.

Reform bill sponsors asked to work with law enforcement

The amendment proposed Thursday would still allow for forfeiture for certain misdemeanor convictions that currently allow forfeiture as a penalty, such as driving under suspension (fourth conviction), illegal gambling, prostitution and some drug crimes.

It would prohibit forfeitures of less than $1,500 cash or of vehicles valued less than $2,500, eliminating smaller forfeiture cases that law enforcement officials agreed shouldn’t be the focus of forfeiture.

It would still allow police to seize money considered “abandoned” and would still allow police to work alongside federal agencies on task forces, and it would allow for high-dollar forfeitures without a corresponding criminal case to be processed under federal forfeiture laws.

And it would allow prosecutors to use criminal forfeiture as part of negotiating plea agreements.

But that money would not be returned to police. Instead, it would be deposited in the state’s general fund.

The bill does allow for police to access forfeiture revenue to recoup expenses for criminal cases. For instance, if police make an arrest, tow and impound a vehicle as part of a case, the department could receive funds to cover the costs. The bill would also still allow police to recoup costs to investigate the crime, such as drug-buy money or money for undercover equipment needed for an operation, according to Lee McGrath, an attorney with the Institute for Justice who helped craft the bill.

It would eliminate the roadside “consent forms” police often carry with them to obtain signatures from people waiving their rights to their property. If someone wishes to have their property considered “abandoned,” that permission would come from the prosecutor’s office.

The committee tasked bill sponsors to work with law enforcement to refine the bill's language before it is heard by the House Judiciary committee.