It is a heated topic that has divided Oklahomans; civil asset forfeiture is the law of the land, but a growing number of people want to change that fact. Does the law need to change? It depends on who you ask.

RELATED: Poll shows Oklahomans support forfeiture reform

Civil asset forfeiture is a process that takes in millions of dollars every year in Oklahoma. The law allows the judicial system to seize money or property if it is believed to be connected to a crime. However, the people who have money seized from them are not always arrested or even charged with a crime.

That was the case for Robert Mack, who says he was driving across Oklahoma with a friend on their way to Las Vegas. The two were pulled over on I-40 for speeding in a construction zone. Mack says the stop was something else entirely. "We were two black men with out of state license plates," Mack told Fox 25 from his home in North Carolina.

The narcotics officer who pulled them over did not write a ticket for speeding. Court records indicate the officer with the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics found a bag full of cash in the back seat of their vehicle. The officer said the two men had different stories on where they were traveling and the bag tested positive for marijuana.

Mack described what happened next, "He [the officer] says 'you got money too?' I said yeah. He said 'that's a lot of money, how much is it?' I said $12,000, he said 'that's a lot of money.' I said, yeah, it's not against the law for me to have it is it?"

"He said 'no, but it's got a rubber band around it.' I said ok. He said 'drug dealers carry their money with a rubber band around it, so I'm going to have to confiscate this money too.'"

When Mack tried to get his money back in court, lawyers for the state's drug agency demanded he answer questions about not just the money seized, but also about every piece of property he owns worth more than five-thousand dollars. The state also asked Mack to answer how much he pays in rent.

The court documents say Mack hasn't responded quickly enough which is an admission his money was drug money or going to buy drugs.

"How did you come up with drugs?" Mack questioned, "Why didn't you say I was going to get a prostitute? Why didn't you say I was going to buy a damn rocket to go to the moon? I mean just make up something and take my money."

Mack does have a criminal history, including drugs, but says he was going to gamble. He does not understand the legal process involved in forfeiture, but says he wasn't charged with a crime so he doesn't understand why his money was taken.

"You're just saying I'm going to do something illegal with it?" Mack said, "Why cause I'm black and I've got $12,000?"

The OBN says it cannot comment on the case because it is ongoing. The agency is asking a judge to sign off on the seizure.

While there may be questions about Mack's seizure case, the bigger question according to advocates for civil forfeiture is "What's wrong with it?"

"We don't need any sort of sweeping wholesale reform that would either intentionally or inadvertently benefit organized crime," said Scott Rowland, the first assistant district attorney for Oklahoma County, "That is my biggest fear."

Rowland has nothing to do with Mack's case but has been working forfeiture cases for decades, part of that time was with the OBN. "It's no accident there are not widespread abuses here," Rowland told Fox 25 about the care law enforcement in Oklahoma takes to avoid problems with forfeiture cases.

Rowland says people pushing reform of civil forfeiture have sparked outrage among law enforcement. The lack of communication between both sides has made meaningful discussion difficult.

"We must first identify what the problem is," Rowland said, "If we simply change laws to attack what we think the problem may be, or what we think the problem could be down the road, that is not good lawmaking we have to figure out what exactly is it we're trying to address here."

Rowland says there could be a need for changes to forfeiture laws, just as there could be positive tweaks to almost any law. But where are those changes needed; in police training; in the legal process that follows; or is talk of reform all about who gets the cash?

"This isn't about money or about where the money goes to," Rowland said admitting the district attorney's office is partially funded by forfeitures, "Law enforcement resent the implication that unless the law is changed that they will do things that are bad that they will do things that are illegal just to get more money for their agency."

"More money is taken, according to the institute of justice, was taken by the government in civil forfeitures than was taken by all burglars in the country last year," said Brad Cates.

Cates is possibly one of the people many would not think of as a leading opponent of civil asset forfeiture; because he helped create it.

"One year I think the attorney general said I was the only profit center in the federal government," Cates told Fox 25. He was the second director of the Federal Forfeiture Program within the U.S. Department of Justice. Forfeiture was created as a creative solution to battle the war on drugs. "We accuse the thing of having committed a crime in federal law," Cates said, "This worked ok because where are the drug dealers? In Columbia."

Cates is now a leading advocate for reforming civil forfeiture and helped craft New Mexico's forfeiture reform. "Most of my life I've been a prosecutor and stopping criminal activity," Cates said, "What I am telling you today is not in any way meant to harm the police; I want to strengthen the police."

So how does the architect of forfeiture do a complete reversal on the topic?

Cates says it's because forfeiture laws have evolved far beyond where they started. He rejects what he calls fear-tactics being used by supporters of forfeiture. "You had a prosecutor talking about how all these drug cartels are going to settle into Oklahoma, well they haven't settled into New Mexico since we passed it. Well maybe they're waiting for a better opportunity, I'm being facetious, but that ain't going to happen."

"Any time you make it more difficult on one end of a criminal statute you benefit those who are engaged in crime," Rowland argued.

Supporters of forfeiture laws say due process is afforded to everyone with the current law. "What's wrong with making the people who traffic drug money through Oklahoma pay some of the cost of the system?" Rowland asked, "There wouldn't be a need for a big criminal justice system if it weren't for the criminals."

Supporters of reform say the big busts prosecutors and police point to as proof forfeiture works could still happen under criminal forfeiture laws. "Criminal asset forfeiture we've strengthened that in New Mexico," Cates said, "So don't just think that forfeiture is bad; I don't want a criminal to have any profits."

Cates has been joined in his calls for reform by fellow colleagues in the Justice Department.

DIVIDED OPINIONS

Law enforcement leaders from police chiefs to sheriffs across the state have written nearly every member of the legislature calling on them to reject any changes to forfeiture laws.

For the most part, money seized by police or deputies ends up back in the hands of law enforcement to buy equipment to continue the fight against drugs.

"The way I feel about it is it is either drug money or its not it's either criminal enterprise money or it's not, the burden of proof is on us," said Canadian County Undersheriff Chris West.

West does not mince words when it comes to his opinion about those who support forfeiture reform.

"We believe that's what this is all about, it's all about getting the money and we oppose that."

Millions of dollars are seized all across Oklahoma every year. Canadian County boasts of its high profile drug discoveries and the forfeitures that go along with them. West says most forfeitures follow a typical pattern.

"You have a couple of people in the vehicle; they're unemployed they have different stories on where they're traveling from and where they're traveling too; they're on a five to seven day trip and they have no luggage," West told Fox 25, "I mean it's just not normal, even the normal citizen would be able to say 'well this doesn't make any sense.'"

In some cases, even if drug dogs alert to illegal substances on bags carrying cash, the people carrying it aren't arrested.

"When our deputies ran across that the individuals were just like, 'I don't know where that money came from, it's not mine.' So on a case like that they sign an affidavit of non-ownership. Anytime we get drugs or money or any asset, we're going to seize that just like we would evidence from another crime," West said.

Where the money came from may never be discovered and the case ends up in court where a judge rules on whether the county can seize it.

"The process I'm describing here is what is known as due process," West, who is running for Canadian County Sheriff, said, "Law enforcement can't just take an asset or seize an asset on the side of the road and then it is theirs, it doesn't work that way."

West said the money should go back to the deputies that risk their lives to fight drug dealers. "We seize way more drugs than we seize money when you take their money you hit them harder than if you take their drugs."

Critics of civil forfeiture say the law has the potential to impact innocent people who just happen to be traveling with cash.

"There are some cases where we have legitimate citizens traveling across the country let's say in a motor home," West told Fox 25, "Let's say it's a man and a wife and they're driving from the Midwest and they're going to California to see some relative and they can document everything and they're telling the same story and they may have $12,000 to $15,000 on them because they're going on a vacation." West says if the District Attorney decides not to file the innocent owners can get their money back. "We can't deny it put a hardship on them, but when you look at the number of situations that we get involved in, that's such a miniscule amount of the time that's the case. Because we want to be very careful and use a lot of discretion that we're not victimizing our citizens.

"I cannot foresee any legitimate reason why any individual in law enforcement cannot be for reform," said Stephen Mills, the police chief of Apache, "We need reform."

Before becoming police chief, Mills was on a drug task force in the military. He often took part in drug raids with local authorities and saw seizures happen in many cases.

"It's not about good cops or bad cops or abusing the law, it's a bad law," Mills said.

Mills has a personal history with seizure laws. While he was in the military a worker on his ranch broke the law while in one of the ranch's trucks.

"I assumed they took the truck as evidence," Mills said, "And I called them to find out when I could get it back and I was told I would never get it back because they were seizing it under the asset forfeiture laws." After fighting for months, Mills took his story to a local newspaper at which point the county finally returned his truck.

He says it shouldn't have taken all that and reform needs to happen

"If you're not abusing it and you're doing everything the way it was supposed to be and for the intent of the law, well then let's make the law reflect how you say you're doing it."

Mills says criminal forfeiture would still exist but by using civil forfeiture the criminals are getting off too easy. "In effect we're taxing them[drug dealers] for operating in Oklahoma because we're not actually investigating the crime."

"$300,000 in the back seat of a car is crime money," West said, "You've got to be crazy not to understand that." West says seized money is investigated, but sometimes they can't solve the crime. He called talk of forfeiture reform a 'farce.'

Mills said that opinion on forfeiture is fading, even among law enforcement members, and he believes forfeiture reform will happen. "It is coming. t is coming now or it is coming later. Oklahoma can be at the forefront and we can lead by example or we can get on the program a day late and a dollar short."

The Canadian County sheriff's office says their office would face funding problems if they lost access to forfeiture funds.

Chief Mills believes he is part of the silent majority of law enforcement and says he will continue to speak out against it.

COST OF INNOCENCE

What happens if a person is targeted for a seizure, but never charged, never tried and never convicted?

In civil forfeiture cases, the property is put on trial. That was the case for the Funky Munky in McAlester. The unique boutique is part adult novelty store, part salon and also sells glass pipes and smoking devices. The store was visited by federal drug agents.

"They came in and said if we did not quit selling the herbal incense they were going to come in and raid us," said Sommer Write, the owner of the Funky Munky "And we were looking at doing time in jail."

Wright says she checked the lab reports and there were no illegal compounds in the incense. She also has warning signs around the glass pipes telling customers they are not to be used for anything but legal tobacco. "We don't want people to do drugs."

The next time drug agents came back, they weren't asking questions. "They took everything in the store, all the money out of the cash register, any change in the back."

They also seized by the glassware and hookah devices as evidence of a drug crime. Next the agents went to the bank and seized all the money in Wright's bank account.

"It was terrible because not only did they take my money they took the money I had collected for the state for sales tax. That was almost $10,000 they took it."

Months went by with no charges so Wright tried to get her money back.

When we first entered the case the first thing we were told by the district attorney was now we're going to file criminal charges," said Brecken Wagner, the attorney for the Funky Munky.

But the county did not file charges. There were no illegal drugs in the Funky Munky and no crime was committed.

"To be absolutely innocent of something to have done nothing wrong," Wagner said, "It's a scary thing to go through.

Still many of the devices sold at the Funky Munky do look like something you could do drugs with.

"We don't live in a police state where the police get to govern what we may do with something," said attorney Blake Lynch.

Lynch and Wagner both point out police are not confiscating materials at "big box" retailers that could be used to do drugs or even make drugs.

"If you want to really stop drugs go after the drugs," Lynch said of the efforts of county officials.

In the end, Pittsburg County relented.

They agreed to not ever file criminal charges, not ever participate in filing criminal charges or file by any other agency," Lynch told Fox 25 of the settlement deal, "In exchange for getting to keep a portion of the proceeds they had taken from our client."

The Pittsburg County District Attorney's office did not respond to our request for an interview on this story. The office is currently facing a federal lawsuit over the handling of the Funky Munky case.

WHERE DOES IT STAND

The bill to overhaul civil asset forfeiture won't be heard this legislative session, but that doesn't mean it is dead.

When the idea of reforming civil forfeiture was first brought up last spring, it was almost immediately met with condemnation from law enforcement. However the idea quickly gained support from conservative groups like The Heritage Foundation. It also found support from more liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union.

Critics of the reform proposals say the changes are being pushed on Oklahomans by out-of-state special interest groups with their own agendas.

One bill to provide modest reforms to civil forfeiture laws did make it out of a Senate committee. The measure would allow people who win their forfeiture cases to collect attorney fees from the state. Right now, it can often cost more money to fight a forfeiture case than the amount of money that was seized.

Since a forfeiture bill is going forward that means other reforms are still possible. They can be added to the bill through amendments at several points in the legislative process.

Supporters of reform have offered some changes to their initial proposal, which they say address the concerns of law enforcement. However, if the reforms are added to the current bill there will be a big battle ahead at the capitol.