HARRISBURG — Police in Pennsylvania seize more than $20 million a year in cash and property from people implicated in drug investigations — in some cases before they are even convicted.

Cops and prosecutors keep the cash to pay for other drug investigations. Seized property — laptops, cars, real estate, equipment — is pressed into service. Or it’s sold, and police keep the proceeds.

Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, call the practice “policing for profit.” And momentum is building to rewrite state law to make property-grabs harder if they involve people not directly tied to drug activity.

A Senate proposal bars seizures before a person is found guilty of a crime. The bill has not moved out of the Judiciary Committee, which held a hearing in October.

Sen. John Wozniak, D-Cambria County, a co-sponsor, said he doesn’t see why prosecutors need to take property from people without first convicting them.

Calls for reform focus on alleged abuses in Philadelphia, where prosecutors file about 6,000 bids a year to seize property allegedly linked to drug crimes, according to an ACLU report earlier this year.

That includes about 100 houses, 150 vehicles and $4 million cash.

One-third of those cases involved property taken from people never charged with a crime, according to the group. About two-thirds of people whose property was seized were African-American, the ACLU found.

But the practice, by no means, is limited to the state’s biggest city.

State police and agents from the attorney general’s office seized $7.5 million worth of cash and property linked to drug crimes in 2013-14, according to state estimates. Prosecutors in counties across the state reported another $9 million in forfeitures.

Only three counties — Cameron, Somerset and Sullivan — reported no revenue from seized property in 2013-14, according to the attorney general’s office.

Property is seized in two ways. Prosecutors can ask a judge to order a forfeiture while sentencing someone convicted of a crime. Or they can take the property through a civil court action.

The latter is more controversial because it creates the potential for property to be taken before someone is convicted. Also, it can involve property owned by people who are never charged.

Some rural prosecutors, including Lawrence County District Attorney Joshua Lamancusa, say they only move to seize property from people accused of crimes.

Lamancusa said seizures are directly tied to efforts to combat the heroin scourge. Prosecutors in his county collected $114,000 worth of cash and property — including nine vehicles and 31 weapons — in 2013-14.

When property is seized, the district attorney’s office gets half, and the rest goes to police departments whose officers participated in the arrest, he said. Proceeds are used for training and drug-fighting equipment.

Lamancusa said many seizures stem form the work of a special unit formed five years ago to combat drug crimes. The unit has conducted 152 raids. Lamancusa estimated that 4 of 5 raids target heroin dealers.

“It’s a very aggressive unit,” he said.

Lawrence County prosecutors have donated about a dozen seized vehicles to other agencies, he said, and are now in the process of giving one to the recycling department. About 20 more vehicles are parked in a secret lot, pending the outcome of the legal process to seize them.

Prosecutors also have taken 50 flat-screen televisions in the last couple years, he said.

Lamancusa said Lawrence County prosecutors could, but choose not to, seize more property.

For example, they avoid situations where there are questions about ownership. “It’s not worth the risk and publicity to take something we don’t have a claim for,” he said.

Police target people for breaking the law, he noted, not to get their property.

“The forfeiture doesn’t drive the case,” he said.

Crawford County District Attorney Francis Schultz said legal safeguards should ensure that property is seized only when appropriate.

“We can’t forfeit anything without a court order,” he said. “It’s not like the district attorney is just grabbing property.”

Police there seized $7,300 tied to drug crimes in 2013-14.

Almost all seizures in Crawford County involve cash, said Schultz.

His office has seized only two vehicles in the last 18 years. In another case, prosecutors investigated a mechanic who was accused of selling drugs and stolen auto parts out of his garage. They seized the garage as part of that prosecution, Schultz said.

Typically Crawford County prosecutors seize cash or property only as part of a plea deal, he said.

Even if they filed paperwork to seize property through the civil process, judges in Crawford County almost always postpone a seizure hearing until a criminal case is concluded, he said.

That’s when seizure decisions should be made, reformers say.

A diverse coalition wants to change state law so that property is only taken after someone is convicted. Supporters include conservative groups including the Faith and Freedom Coalition, Freedomworks and the Commonwealth Foundation, as well as the liberal ACLU.

Pennsylvania is just one state struggling with the issue. New Mexico and Montana passed reforms earlier this year, and similar bills are under consideration in California and Michigan.

The Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys agrees with the need for reform, though its president, Philip Gelso, a lawyer in Luzerne County, said the proposal now in the Senate doesn’t eliminate conflicts of interest created when law enforcement keeps the property it seizes.

That aspect of the state’s seizure law was criticized by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm based near Washington, D.C., which gave Pennsylvania and 20 other states a “D” grade when it examined their laws five years ago.

Its highest marks went to states such as Maine, where seized property doesn’t go directly to law enforcement agencies.

District attorneys oppose changing the law. Limiting cash and property seizures, they say, will give a pass to people “who knowingly allow their property to be used by a drug trafficker.”

It also will aid drug dealers who want to keep prosecutors from accessing their ill-gotten gains, argues the state District Attorneys Association.

Lamancusa, the Lawrence County prosecutor, said that while he doesn’t use the civil process to take property, he doesn’t think it should be taken away. He notes that prosecutors, in any circumstance, cannot unilaterally decide to seize property.

“Either way, we have to go before a neutral and detached judge,” he said.

John Finnerty covers the Pennsylvania Statehouse for CNHI’s newspapers and websites. Reach him at jfinnerty@cnhi.com.