In what was billed as a first in Butler County, authorities are moving to seize a two-story house on American Avenue in Butler under the state’s asset forfeiture law.

In essence, Butler County District Attorney Richard Goldinger argues, the home was being used as a drug den and the site for drug sales. As such, it’s “derivative contraband” in the city’s drug trade, and authorities can take ownership of it.

The approach may be novel in the county, but across Pennsylvania authorities seize millions of dollars worth of cash and property each year, much of it belonging to innocent people. Because of fundamental flaws in the law itself, it’s going to be up to county authorities to be judicious with the law’s application. This first case will tell us a lot about how county prosecutors intend to conduct themselves.

District Attorney Richard Goldinger acknowledged last week that moving to seize homes authorities claim are used for drug activity is a “drastic action.” He’s absolutely correct. Pennsylvania’s civil asset forfeiture law, put on the books in 1988, is deeply flawed. It was intended as a means to strip drug lords and big-time criminals of the fruits of their criminal enterprises. But it lacks vital protections for the innocent and invites abuse by public officials.

Under the law, the government can legally take property it claims is connected to illegal activity but isn’t actually required to charge, much less convict, the property’s owner of a crime. Prosecutors and police are then allowed to keep 100 percent of the profits for their own budgets.

The law, because it classifies the seizures as a civil matter, also doesn’t bestow the type of constitutional protections property owners would receive had they been charged in criminal court.

Owners have no constitutional right to appointed council, have only 30 days to contest the seizures, and have to prove the asset “innocent” or risk losing it. Many aren’t even notified that their property is the subject of a civil proceeding, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. The law also allows prosecutors to ask a judge for a summary judgment — essentially meaning the judge can rule without holding a hearing on the merits of a case.

The Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm, rated Pennsylvania’s forfeiture laws as among the worst in the nation in a report issued late last year. The organization says a lack of transparency and aggressive programs in cities like Philadelphia have resulted in more than $152 million being seized between 2000 and 2013.

Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini, in a 2012 ruling on a Centre County case, called the law “state-sanctioned theft.” In cities like Philadelphia, where, according to the ACLU, law enforcement seizes $1 million in cash from innocent people every year, it certainly seems to be.

Reforms to this law are badly needed. Ideally, these seizures should be confined to those who have been convicted of criminal offenses.

At the very least, prosecutors should be required to meet a higher burden of proof than the current “preponderance of evidence” standard that exists now. And above all, lawmakers need to remove the incentive of financial profit from the departments that ultimately decide to begin forfeiture proceedings. The money should go to general fund accounts of local or state government; not into accounts managed by law enforcement.

Changing the law is not the prerogative of Goldinger and Butler County authorities. But those flows should inform how and when they invoke its power..

The citizens of Butler County expect law enforcement to use every tool at their disposal to fight the scourge of drugs. This law is one of them, but it should not be used to seize the property of landlords and homeowners when authorities can’t prove they participated in or abetted the selling or use of illegal drugs.