In Oklahoma, one state senator has taken it upon himself to tackle a controversial practice. Senator Kyle Loveless (R-Oklahoma City) is waging war on his state’s broken civil asset forfeiture laws. In Oklahoma—which currently has a D in the Institute for Justice’s scorecard—authorities can take and keep a person’s property based on a suspicion of wrongdoing.

One critic was quick to attack the Senator. “This is without a doubt the single worst, most damning, most asinine  and devastating bill I have ever seen for this State and local law enforcement,” fumed Randall Edwards, Canadian County Sheriff, in an email to the press.

Edwards went on to say, “I don’t know why they or anyone else in their right mind would think the state would been titled to my agencies proceeds from [civil asset forfeiture].

Loveless can expect a fight over his proposed legislation.

The new bill – SB 838 – would require law enforcement to file a conviction before any assets are forfeited to authorities. It would also elevate the burden of proof from ‘preponderance of evidence’ to ‘clear and convincing’ so as to shift the burden away from the innocent citizen. Once assets are seized, a trial by jury is guaranteed to resolve the case. SB 838 also takes away part of the profit incentive for law enforcement by requiring all assets to be attributed to the General Revenue Fund.

The goal is to prevent the abuse of asset forfeiture laws in the state, and contrary to what Sheriff Edwards may say, there is abuse. Take the case of Desert Snow—a private intelligence network based in Oklahoma that aids local police in seizing drugs and cash during roadside stops. In 2013, employees of Desert snow were hired as interdiction units with the power to seize assets by local authorities. These individuals were allowed to keep some of the proceeds from the assets they seized.

After a District Court found that dozens of asset forfeiture cases were based on these private interdiction units he threw out the cases and threatened Davis with jail if he carried on.

However, that is not the worst of Desert Snow or its sister organization, Black Asphalt. The Washington Post reports that “Agencies with police known to be participating in the Black Asphalt intelligence network have seen a 32 percent jump in seizures beginning in 2005,” a drastic jump for a process which is only challenged one sixth of the time.

Sen. Loveless’ bill is only one of the many efforts to curb these excesses.

States like Iowa and Kansas have outlawed the use of Black Asphalt information and a Nebraska prosecutor warned that the company’s methods infringe upon civil liberties. Oklahoma defense attorney Adam Banner described Black Asphalt’s activities as a ‘free-for-all cash grab’.

With all due respect to Sheriff Edwards, all too often “your agency’s profits” (excuse the correction) come at the cost of due process. Who in their right mind would tolerate such an asinine regime?