Civil forfeiture before conviction is wrong so the court got it right.
Sounds like they need to change the law so that the forfeiture occurs on conviction with the money held as evidence like the gun, ammo and drugs.
“Civil forfeiture before conviction is wrong so the court got it right.......”Sounds like they need to change the law so that the forfeiture occurs on conviction with the money held as evidence like the gun, ammo and drugs.”
The changes in law need to go further than you suggest.
Mere possession of the money does not prove how the money was obtained; possession does not prove the money was not obtained in any other, in any “legitimate” way. It is not a mere question of whether or not the defendants drug dealing made him any money. It is a question of needing to PROVE the source of the money found.
But yes, backing up to your point, there should be NO “civil asset forfeiture” (a) when there has been no conviction of any crime, and FURTHER, (b) without a full court proceeding, with full defense of the defendant, on the additional question of the forfeiture itself. FURTHER, the holding of any assets to be waiting that outcome must be assigned by the court, with a court assigned private bank account established for it, NOT “held in trust” by the police or prosecutors (they have not yet proven they are entitled to it).
Police and prosecutors all over the country are abusing “civil asset forfeiture” for the funding of their departments.