[Rurudyne]

In ANY issue where the underlying controversy is criminal in nature (no matter if it is murder, theft, fraud or whatever) there should be no civil liability, and therefore no asset forfeiture, without an actual conviction for the crime first.

No conviction: No civil liability

[Mouton]

I agree, civil prosecution should only follow criminal conviction as the threshold for criminal conviction is much higher. Seizing and forfeiture of cars because an individual drives drunk or is found operating one under influence of drugs should never be sufficient to seize a person’s property IMO. Impounded, OK, forfeited, no way.

[Sasparilla]

...No conviction: No civil liability...

This falls beyond the “No taxation without representation” category. And that was part of what led to the unpleasantness with George III.

Sometimes, the seizing entity will try to make a “Deal” where the government gets to keep a percentage of the take in return for the balance of the property. This amounts to legalized extortion.
Formal hearings often have to be held when the Prosecutors office wants to keep the ill gotten proceeds anyway. The burden essentially falls on the owner. And the owner must hire a lawyer to be on equal footing with the state’s attorney or take a chance on representing themselves.
It’s a stacked deck any way you look at it.

[null and void]

That certainly doesn't give the people living off of asset forfeiture any incentive to use ANY means fair or foul to insure convictions, does it?

Note that I said doesn't, not wouldn't...