[rhino369]

There really isn’t any reasonable defense for these examples or the lack of the speedy hearing.

But I’m not against civil forfeiture if practiced better with better safe guards.

Every year the government takes 30%+ of the money I make via taxation. Unelected administrative functionaries lay down laws that can massively change the value of your property.

I’m not going to cry if the government keeps money whose origin you can’t explain. By law, I have to file tax returns that explains my income. There isn’t a huge difference. These kind of seizures makes organized crime much easier to fight.

But again, a lot of these examples look more like straight theft.

Also, law enforcement shouldn’t get to keep the money it seizes. It’s a perverse incentive. Should just go into the general treasury.

[patmorgan23]

There's absolutely no reason to have civil forfeiture when criminal forfeiture exists. If you think money is the product of a crime, seize it, and charge the person with a crime. If you can't prove the crime then the money gets returned.

[ROTMetro]

If taxes were paid on the money then your example makes zero sense.

But yes we must explain everything to the Government. Rights aren't inherent, but are granted to us by the government if we can explain good enough why we need them. Cops should pull me over and ask how I financed my car and if I don't have a good enough answer/documentation on me they should get to take it /s