Probable cause should not be sufficient grounds to confiscate anything in this country. Perhaps to detain it, but definitely not to confiscate it.
I can see confiscating things that are obviously used in criminal activity, but is there really any justification for allowing the confiscation of cash with anything less than beyond reasonable doubt? Especially if the burden of proof is placed on the guy who had it confiscated?
As a “young scholar” you should know that “probable cause” is the tenant used by the criminal justice system to arrest and charge a suspect. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is used by the judiciary to determine guilt. If cops were arresting based on “beyond reasonable doubt” what would we need the courts (and juries) for?