For decades, Hawaii law enforcement officials have been seizing cash and property suspected of being tied to illicit activity, even if they never obtain a conviction or file a criminal charge in the case.

Hawaii police and prosecutors have argued the state’s civil asset forfeiture program provides a disincentive to drug traffickers, gambling operators and other criminal enterprises by disrupting their financial gains.

The program has long been criticized by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union as little more than legalized theft and a violation of the due process principle of innocent until proven guilty. Critics say the program also comes with an inherent conflict of interest, because law enforcement agencies get to keep any confiscated cash and proceeds from the auction of seized property.

This year, state lawmakers are again looking at reforming the program after years of failed attempts. Their efforts were bolstered by a recent state audit that found that corresponding criminal charges were never filed in 26 percent of civil asset forfeiture cases in the 2015 fiscal year and 4 percent of the cases were dismissed.

“That’s just crazy. So we can just go around and grab people’s money? I mean it’s crazy,” said Sen. Karl Rhoads (D-Downtown-Nuuanu-Liliha), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. “This is three years of law school talking: I don’t know how it is constitutional.”

During the 2018 fiscal year, law enforcement agencies in Hawaii seized $1.4 million in cash, cars and other property, according to a report from the state Department of the Attorney General.

House Bill 748 would allow cash and property to be seized only if the suspected crime is a felony and requires that it be returned if there is no conviction.

If lawmakers enact the measure, Hawaii will join a growing number of states in reforming their civil asset forfeiture programs, many of which grew out of the so-called war on drugs in the 1980s.

Sixteen states now require a criminal conviction to forfeit most or all types of property, according to the Institute for Justice, an advocacy organization based in Virginia that has been a leading critic of asset forfeiture. North Carolina, New Mexico and Nebraska have abolished their programs.

House Bill 748 also would divert half the proceeds from forfeitures into the state’s general fund and the other half to a community-based program that provides social services to offenders with behavioral health problems. The amendment aims to reduce any incentive for law enforcement to seize money and property for their department’s own financial benefit, although the attorney general’s office would be able to use some of the funds to cover the cost of administering the program.

Currently, half of the proceeds from civil asset forfeitures go to the law enforcement and prosecuting agencies that conducted the seizures. Another half is deposited into the attorney general’s criminal forfeiture fund, which can be used to support the asset forfeiture program, among other things.

The bill has passed three committees in the Senate and House, but still needs to be heard by the Senate Ways and Means Committee.

Sen. Donovan Dela Cruz (D-Wahiawa-Whitmore-Mililani Mauka), who chairs the committee, needs to schedule the bill by early this week or it will likely be dead for the year. Dela Cruz was noncommittal when asked if he planned to hear the bill, saying he was still reviewing all the measures scheduled for his committee.

Dela Cruz didn’t hear a similar Senate bill last month that would have enacted more far-reaching reforms to the program, including stricter standards for seizing property, and the measure died.

The House bill has received support from groups such as Hawaii’s ACLU, the Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii and the Community Alliance on Prisons.

In written testimony, the local chapter of the ACLU said Hawaii law enforcement agencies are abusing the program, citing the findings of the state auditor. The ACLU also noted that under the bill, law enforcement would still be allowed to seize ill-gotten property — achieving the purported law enforcement objective of disrupting criminal operations — but not keep it if there is no corresponding criminal conviction.

That hasn’t kept law enforcement agencies in Hawaii, including county police departments and prosecuting attorneys and the Department of Land and Natural Resources, from coming out in strong opposition to the bill.

The vast majority of asset forfeiture cases on Hawaii island involve narcotics trafficking, said Hawaii County Prosecuting Attorney Mitch Roth in written testimony. Roth said the asset forfeiture program is one of the most successful ways to undermine the economic infrastructure of drug traffickers.

“We believe the changes suggested by (the bill) would create a more time-consuming, expensive and difficult process, which would weaken the deterrent effect of our current asset forfeiture laws,” he added.

Honolulu Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Tricia Nakamatsu argued in a hearing on the bill that Hawaii didn’t suffer from the abuses reported in other states.

“We believe that our system is unlike, perhaps, some of the horror stories that have been coming out of the mainland,” she said. “Our system is actually very well-regulated.”

Rep. Joy San Buenaventura (D, Pahoa-Kalapana), who introduced the House bill, said the audit showed otherwise — that the program was poorly managed. Further, she said, there was no proof it was deterring crime.

“All they are doing is by rhetoric claiming that it has this deterrent effect and it doesn’t,” said San Buenaventura, who is also an attorney.