[BitWielder1]

How about no Forfeiture without a Criminal Conviction and then only what's specified in the Sentence.
If the cops need to "hold" items or cash in evidence, they should not be allowed to use or spend any of it, until cleared by the court.
And if they fail to convict, every penny should be returned.

[driftdiver]

In some jurisdictions they do this with firearms. They just flat refuse to return firearms because they know the cost of going to court exceeds the value of the firearm.

[hoosierham]

Once upon a time the 4th Amendment protected your property..and then some greedy politicos started applying admiralty law, and the people allowed it because “it only the bad people who have stuff taken away...”

A lot of people,including Americans, don’t really like the Constitutional protection being a right of “those kind of people”;”those...” being anyone not of their own clique!

[Wolfie]

Exactly. No conviction, no forfeiture. The fact that they’re using weasel words like ‘overzealous” shows they’re just lying.

[JimRed]

How about no Forfeiture without a Criminal Conviction and then only what's specified in the Sentence.

That sounds correct and fair, except that criminals don't play fair. They'll sell off the asset that's likely to be forfeited. So there has to be a prison term substituted for the forfeiture if that is done.