https://lasvegassun.com/news/2014/mar/14/humboldt-county-settles-suits-i-80-cash-seizures/
"Nguyen was given a written warning for speeding but wasn't cited. As a condition of release, he signed a "property for safekeeping receipt," which indicated the money was abandoned or seized and not returnable. But the lawsuit says he did so only because Dove threatened to seize his vehicle unless he "got in his car and drove off and forgot this ever happened."
After Nguyen's stop, the sheriff issued a news release with a photograph of Dove pictured with a K-9 and $50,000 in seized cash "after a traffic stop for speeding." "This cash would have been used to purchase illegal drugs and now will benefit Humboldt County with training and equipment. Great job," the statement said."
So was it forfeiture or theft?
As an observation, I think you will probably find more abuses of the system in a sheriff’s office rather than a municipal department since most sheriffs are elected and their departments are more subject to political influences.
That may be too broad of a statement, but it seems most of the abuses tend to be done at the direction of the top cop.
In the case mentioned, the subject signed a release basically abandoning the cash. The S/O had the news conference and said how they had “forfeited” the cash that would have been used by a “drug dealer”. I would be willing to bet if you did a deep dive on this case, it still went before a judge and the S/O using the “abandoned” cash receipt got a court to order the forfeiture.
Regardless of verbiage, it still takes a court order to take items from an individual. Again, on this particular instance, it appears the the S/O was more guilty of theft than anything.