The Morristown, Tenn., deputy who was ordered by the state comptroller to return $6,000 cash and several vehicles taken from people suspected of crimes. The Iowa state patrol officers who snatched $100,000 in winnings from California poker players who were driving through the state. The $63,530 taken from an Air Force veteran in Nebraska on his way to Los Angeles to place a down payment on a house. Officers took his plastic bag full of cash, and Mark Brewer never saw the money again.

Examples like these have fueled calls for reform of civil asset forfeiture, a practice that allows law enforcement officers to take property when there is simply a suspected link to criminal activity. And when people are carrying bricks of cash, officers are all too eager to claim they must be fueling the drug trade. After all, the rise of civil asset forfeiture in the 1980s coincides with an effort to combat drug kingpins during that time, with the goal that seizing cash and property would take away the assets that could grow their empires.

But civil asset forfeiture has grown into a bloated system that critics call theft by police. An estimated $5 billion in cash and property was seized in 2014. Some reforms have been made: A handful of states, including Nebraska, now require a criminal conviction to seize property, while former Attorney General Eric Holder put some restrictions in place to try to curb state and local police's use of the practice.

Now President-elect Trump has selected Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., to be his attorney general. Sessions defended civil asset forfeiture during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the topic in 2015. Democrats and Republicans on the committee generally spoke against the practice, including Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who went toe-to-toe with the Fraternal Order of Police on the issue. Sessions, however, said losing such seized funds "would be a huge detriment to law enforcement."

That's a concerning issue as the Senate looks to lock in Session's confirmation hearings prior to Trump's inauguration. Watchdog.org has reported extensively on the topic, including looking at Sessions' stance on Friday.

Sessions' attitude worries reform advocates like Robert Everett Johnson, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, which has defended numerous people trying to get their seized property back. Johnson said civil asset forfeiture turns the justice system on its head, assuming guilt and forcing people to fight arduous court battles to have their stuff returned.

Johnson is hopeful questioners will delve into the topic of civil asset forfeiture during those hearings. It's an important topic, as Sessions' actions as attorney general could dial back many of the positive reforms that have been made to slow down "policing for profit."

"Sessions needs to be asked what he will do as attorney general about civil asset forfeiture," Johnson said. "His answers are important."

Johnny Kampis is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is a content editor and staff writer at Watchdog.org. He previously worked in the newspaper industry and as a freelance writer. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.