There are a few principles so fundamental to American law and our notion of justice that practically any citizen can recite them—due process of law, every person is entitled to his or her day in court, innocent until proven guilty, just to name a few. These are things we have come to expect from our legal system. Unfortunately, these principles are glaringly absent from one area of law—asset forfeiture.

Legislation proposed by State Representatives Rob McColley (R-Napoleon) and Thomas Brinkman (R-Cincinnati) would restore some of those basic principles.

Asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to seize property owned by an individual that law enforcement believes may have been involved in a criminal act. The accused has no right to a trial unless he or she sues for it, and there is no presumption of innocence—property is taken solely based on probable cause (reasonable belief) that a crime was committed. Nowhere is the state required to convict the person of a crime in order to retain the seized property.

When property is taken, the proceeds from a sale or the property itself is retained by the law enforcement agency that seized it. There is incentive for law enforcement to seize property. The more assets a department seizes, the bigger its budget.

A person may only recover the seized property if the citizen sues the state to give back his or her own property. Before a court, the accused must demonstrate that the property was seized illegally and he or she is entitled to its return. The property is presumed to have been seized legally and the burden is on the accused to prove otherwise.

Even if the person is able to jump through the bureaucratic hoops to get his or her property returned, it may take months or even years. In the meantime, the person may have to hire expensive lawyers to fight any criminal charges, or, perhaps, just to reclaim the seized property.

The proposed reform goes a long way to remedy these problems. It would put the burden of proof back where it belongs—on the state. Under the proposed law, the state would need to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the property was involved in criminal activity in order to retain it.

This legislation would limit asset forfeiture without killing it. This reform is designed to preserve the tools that law enforcement and prosecutors need to deprive gangs, organized crime, and drug dealers of resources and strip those offenders of their ill-gotten gains while protecting the innocent.