A couple discrepancies in the Forbes story - they neglected to mention the installation by her son of a replacement engine in the truck the day (which she paid for) before the (presumed) arrest and confiscation.
Honestly, it does sound like she was a straw buyer, no matter what her future plans for the truck were - for all intents and purposes, she bought the truck for her son to use and maintain. It assumed her son would ‘get back on his feet’ and buy a truck of his own, and part of his payment for use of the truck was to tow RV vehicles and other assorted tasks.
Seems like an exchange of value with both parties getting some.
And I’m going to randomly assume that the truck has long been sold by the state of Arizona at auction, and the proceeds distributed to whatever agencies profit from such things.
Seems more that the ACLU is using this as a wedge to end the loser pays as well as the filing fees associated with seized property, but I’m not sure they hitched the wagon to the right star here - in the essence of the case, does she have standing to contest the seizure? Maybe as a joint litigant, but alone, I don’t think so.
How can one be a “straw buyer” for a truck? Why was the son unable to make a purchase of said vehicle? Can one be prohibited from buying a vehicle?
Seems the form the prosecutor/sheriff used (fill in the blank type) was for drug/racketeering, and, at most, they charged her son with burglary, which is not included in the forfeiture laws.
They also used "family vehicle" which is used for insurance/accident cases, not for criminal cases.
Forbes did not do a good job of this story, and when I find myself siding with the ACLU it is scary, but it seems this case is a good one to show the abuse being used against people to create slush funds for the offices.