EDITORIAL: New transparency requirement reveals Nevada law enforcement agencies raked in $3.2 million through forfeiture in fiscal 2016.

During the 2015 legislative session, law enforcement lobbyists successfully gutted a proposal to reform Nevada’s forfeiture statutes. But a provision imposing more transparency on police seizure activity managed to survive.

Last week, the Nevada Policy Research Institute released an eye-opening report based on the new data. The numbers show that for fiscal 2016, Nevada law enforcement agencies generated $3.2 million through civil forfeiture. Metro’s number was $1.9 million.

Civil forfeiture allows law enforcement to confiscate cash, cars, property and other valuables based on the mere suspicion that it was connected to a crime. The owner need never be arrested or even charged with wrongdoing.

To make matters worse, Nevada police departments are allowed to keep most of the proceeds from forfeited property, creating an incentive for law enforcement to focus on the types of crimes that might help pad the bottom line at the expense of more pressing priorities. Of Metro’s $1.9 million, the department sent about $702,000 to the Clark County School District, as required by law, but kept the remaining $1.2 million.

Not surprisingly, the great majority of Metro seizures involved cash or property worth less than $1,000, making it financially prohibitive for an innocent owner to contest the forfeiture action. The department justified most of the activity by linking the loot to illegal drugs.

Daniel Honchariw, who compiled the report for NPRI, noted that Clark County forfeitures occurred overwhelmingly in low-income, minority neighborhoods surrounding the downtown Las Vegas area.

“In addition to the ethical problems raised by the practice, there should be concerns over whether or not this is the most efficient use of Metro’s resources,” Mr. Honchariw said. “In many cases, Metro’s related processing and storage costs far outweigh the value of the seized assets.”

Some states have moved recently to reform their forfeiture laws, which were intended to ensure drug lords and other criminal kingpins didn’t profit from their ill-gotten assets. But several high-profile abuses involving innocent people forced to surrender cash or property to police on the flimsiest of evidence have caused many state and federal lawmakers — both Republican and Democrat — to revisit the issue.

Civil forfeiture raises all sorts of constitutional issues involving due process and private property rights. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently questioned whether the tactic as currently practiced could survive judicial scrutiny. But until the high court again takes up the matter — or Congress and the Legislature move to ensure that nobody loses property without first being convicted of a crime — increased transparency can at least help keep the issue in the public spotlight.