A bipartisan group of legislators, including several from Greenville, plans to sponsor a bill that would drastically reform South Carolina's civil asset forfeiture law.

Rep. Alan Clemmons, R-Horry, said he plans to file a bill within the next week that would essentially require a criminal conviction before the state can seek forfeiture of a person's cash or property.

The renewed effort to reform the state's forfeiture law comes in response to the TAKEN investigation by The Greenville News and Anderson Independent Mail that has shed light on the ability of police to seize cash from people regardless of whether criminal charges have been filed or a conviction has been obtained, Clemmons said.

The TAKEN team spent two years documenting every civil asset forfeiture case in the state from 2014-2016 — more than 3,200 cases involving more than 4,000 people — to show police had seized more than $17 million from people. Most of that cash ends up back in the hands of police, which reform advocates say creates an incentive for police to seek profit from forfeiture, the investigation found.

A large contingent of legislators from across the state signed on Wednesday to co-sponsor a companion bill that Clemmons had already pre-filed this session that would require law enforcement to report forfeiture cases to a statewide tracking system and searchable website maintained by the State Law Enforcement Division.

Together, the two bills, if passed, would give South Carolina one of the strongest civil asset forfeiture laws in the country in terms of private property rights, he said.

This kind of impactful investigative journalism takes time & money.

HELP US:Please subscribe

It would create "The gold standard" of forfeiture laws and would mirror a law passed in New Mexico, Clemmons said. New Mexico is cited by property rights groups such as the Institute for Justice as having the highest rated forfeiture law in the country. South Carolina's law is currently one of the lowest rated, according to the Institute for Justice.

Rep. Jason Elliott, R-Greenville, a former prosecutor, said support for civil forfeiture reform and support for law enforcement are mutually beneficial positions.

“Strengthening civil asset forfeiture also serves to improve and increase confidence and support for law enforcement," Elliott said. "Part of supporting law enforcement is creating an environment where law enforcement is respected and that actions of law enforcement are not called into question by the people of South Carolina.”

A light needed to be shone on civil forfeiture and reform needs to take place, he said.

"We need as much transparency as possible when the government seizes someone’s property," he said. "It has to be done properly and for just cause. Individuals do not need to have their property seized if they are not involved in a crime and they certainly don’t need to have their property seized if they are innocent.”

Elliott is a co-sponsor of the bill to create a searchable database, H3307, and intends to co-sponsor the companion legislation once it's filed.

“The expectation should be that the government shouldn’t take your property unless you have used that property in the commission of a crime or if it is involved directly or indirectly with the commission of a crime,” he said.

People who commit crimes should face consequences, but people shouldn't be deprived of their property based on probable cause, the standard South Carolina uses now in its civil forfeiture law, he said.

More:Enterprising town turns SC highways into rivers of cash

More:What to do if you’re pulled over and the cops want to take your cash

Rep. Garry Smith, R-Simpsonville, who plans to co-sponsor Clemmons' bills, said they're based on model legislation from the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council and return forfeiture to its proper scope, where property rights and due process are restored and proof is needed before a person can lose their stuff.

Smith said the way forfeiture works in South Carolina is backward. A person has to fight and spend money to regain their property without being charged or convicted of a crime.

"And that's wrong," he said.

The entire forfeiture system has strayed far from the original intent of forfeiture laws, which were enacted as maritime law during colonial times as a way to seize goods from ships that tried to bypass British taxes, Smith said.

"It has been bastardized by courts and others to all sorts of things which it was not intended to be for administrative confiscation of property," he said. "I'm just shocked at how it has expanded to the point that it has."

Civil forfeiture practice getting visibility

Clemmons called the TAKEN series by The News a tremendous service to the people of South Carolina.

“It’s getting noticed not just in the Greenville area. It’s getting noticed all around the state,” he said.

That visibility to the issue has spurred his efforts to revive a bipartisan bill that he's filed in past sessions along with Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Columbia. In past sessions, the bill had been shelved without a subcommittee hearing, much less a full House vote.

This time, Clemmons is gathering sponsors for the bills, and 21 legislators signed on to his forfeiture tracking bill on Wednesday. He expected many of those same legislators, and others, to co-sponsor the forfeiture reform bill.

That bill has been submitted for review by the legislative counsel and could be filed as soon as Thursday or early next week, Clemmons said.

Rutherford, the minority leader, said legislators have been coming up to him outraged that forfeiture has been allowed to continue so long without reform. He will once again co-sponsor the reform bills and he expects them to pass the House, he said. The newest bill will be introduced to the Legislative Black Caucus on Tuesday, he said.

Rep. Micah Caskey, R-Lexington, said he would sign on as a co-sponsor to that bill because it would establish the processes and "formalities that this whole thing should have."

Clemmons said he'd spoken to the judiciary committee chair, Rep. Peter McCoy, R-Charleston, and had been assured his bills would be assigned to a subcommittee to be reviewed.

In addition to the House bills, Senator Tom Davis filed a forfeiture reform bill last week that would allow forfeiture proceedings where less than $7,500 was seized to be handled by magistrates courts, which would allow individuals to represent themselves rather than paying an attorney to take their case, like often happens in civil court.

Davis has also filed bills in past sessions to no avail. He said often bills may be meritorious but don't get attention until the public becomes engaged. That's now happened, he said, because of the TAKEN investigation.

"Thanks to all the good work that you guys have been doing, hopefully the issue will have a little bit more traction this session," Davis said.

He said there needs to be a conviction before property can be forfeited. His bill also would return property to owners if forfeiture filings aren't filed within 30 days of seizing someone's property. Davis also pointed to the incentive police have to seize property because they directly benefit from forfeiture profits.

“It goes to the very individuals that make the arrests and seizures," he said. "I think that’s a bad policy. There shouldn’t be a monetary incentive."

Davis cited the costly and prohibitive nature of the civil system under the current law that frequently deprives people from being able to defend their seized property.

One hurdle Davis said forfeiture reform faces is the notion among many legislators that any forfeiture reform would have a negative implication on law enforcement.

“In the General Assembly, the law enforcement community holds a lot of sway, particularly in the Republican Party, and understandably so," he said. "They are very honorable and important members of our society and people respect and trust law enforcement.”

Reform is not anti-law enforcement, Davis said. Rather, it is simply in favor of the "bedrock principle that you can’t be deprived of your property without due process of law.

“I’m hopeful, but I’m also realistic," he said. "I guess the question is if the public awareness of this issue is sufficient to get it moving.”

More:What's in the TAKEN civil forfeiture investigation: Table of contents

More:How we brought TAKEN to life