[wireman]

it supports my initial suspicions that these guys were up to no good

So when somebody suspects (but can't even begin to prove) that you're up to no good, they can take all of your money too?

Beyond a reasonable doubt and a jury of one's peers seems to be missing here.

All this is is a welfare program for law enforcement agencies.

[TKDietz]

"Beyond a reasonable doubt and a jury of one's peers seems to be missing here."

There is no "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of proof required in these cases. These are civil actions and must be proved only by a "preponderance of the evidence." In my state at least if the person from whom the monies were seized happened to have joint, some prescription meds for which he did not have a prescription, or any other illegal drugs anywhere in the vicinity of the cash seized, the burden of proof shifts to him. The government will have to prove nothing else. He must then prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the money didn't come from a drug transaction or that he didn't intend to buy any drugs with it or otherwise help facilitate any drug transaction with it. It's very difficult to prove a negative. This guy in the case that was the subject of this article didn't even have any drugs though so the burden of proof was on the government. Obviously the Eighth Circuit doesn't think there really needs to be any evidence to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard when it comes to forfeiting money. It's a good thing this guy didn't own that car or he probably would have lost that too.