TRENTON -- Gov. Chris Christie on Monday vetoed a bill that would have required county and state prosecutors to publish information about how they use civil courts to seize property from criminal investigations.

The practice, known as civil asset forfeiture, remains controversial because it means police can take assets like money and cars from people before they've been convicted of a crime.

The measure (S2267), which passed both houses of the state Legislature unanimously, was meant to provide transparency about the practice's prevalence in New Jersey, where prosecutors have for years used forfeiture funds to pad budgets and pay for training and equipment upgrades.

Claiming such public disclosure would unnecessarily "hamper ongoing law enforcement operations" and "jeopardize" public safety, the governor in a conditional veto message instead recommended changes creating a less robust reporting requirement.

The bill would have required prosecutors disclose to the state attorney general each seized asset, the circumstances of its seizure and the law enforcement purpose for which it was used. The attorney general would then be required to publish an annual report.

Christie instead recommended a quarterly report in which prosecutors identify seized assets and detail the legal proceedings by which they were seized.

County prosecutors already produce similar reports, which are reviewed by the Attorney General's Office but not made public, according to a spokesman for that office.

Under Christie's proposal, prosecutors also would not have to disclose why they seized an asset or for what purpose it would be used.

The governor said his proposed changes would "strike a balance between government transparency and protecting law enforcement operations and personnel."

Rebecca Livengood, an attorney for the New Jersey chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has advocated against civil asset forfeiture, said the governor had wrongly invoked security concerns to quash transparency requirements that could shine light on an obscure and lucrative police practice.

"We've seen, in New Jersey and across the country, that it is a practice that is subject to abuse by law enforcement," she said.

Civil asset forfeiture is a longstanding but little-understood practice that has in recent years drawn criticism from civil libertarians on the political left and right alike.

It remains popular, however, among elected officials and the heads of police departments, who say asset forfeiture transforms ill-gotten goods into money for important community programs and police training.

A convicted drug dealer, for example, could see their Cadillac seized in a civil proceeding and used to pay for a gun buyback event.

State law prevents police departments from using forfeiture money to pay for salaries or other fixed costs, but in New Jersey, such funds have been used for anything from a multi-million dollar body camera grant program to computer equipment upgrades.

Critics say that the civil proceedings also complicate criminal cases and upend the presumption of innocence by forcing a defendant to prove the money or property was not associated with criminal activity.

In a recent case in Hudson County, police took $171 from a man arrested on drug charges. A month later, as he sat in a jail cell, he received a letter from the court informing him it would cost $175 in filing fees to challenge the seizure.

While criminal defendants have a right to a court-appointed attorney, civil defendants do not, forcing some New Jerseyans whose assets have been seized to fight the civil case themselves while in jail awaiting trial.

The vetoed bill would have required prosecutors to disclose, among other things, whether the property owner had been represented by an attorney in the civil case against them.

"It would reveal that people, by and large, are not represented by counsel" in such cases, Livengood said.

S.P. Sullivan may be reached at ssullivan@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter. Find NJ.com on Facebook.