If no one claims the assets, then why shouldn’t the state keep them?
This is what many here at FR fail to understand about normal civil asset forfeiture.
That $10,000 in cash that Pedro had in his truck when he was pulled over? That doesn’t belong to Pedro. Ask him. He will tell you it is not his.
This being the normal instance of CAF; why would some stooge here argue that Pedro should keep that money?
Why?
Not only is your post racist, but you are missing the point. Civil asset forfeiture has been abused over and over by police and sheriff's departments to rob people of their meager assets on a whim. People with out of town plates are especially vulnerable, because it takes time and money to return to the jurisdiction to attempt to get it back. The cops know this, especially if they're looking to purchase some neat new SWAT gear.
Besides "Pedro" having his money confiscated, he also loses his truck, meaning his way to get to work. In many cases, the amounts confiscated are far less than $10k, and people have to hire a lawyer if they ever expect to get it back. No police officer has the right to take my assets on a suspicison of illegal activity. If you think they should, I advise you to never carry cash to purchase a used vehical.
So, would you support all this revenue going directly to the state’s general fund, as opposed to the agency/court/jurisdiction that stole it?
Read a few of these asset-forfeiture stories and come back and explain why those were justified:
http://fear.org/1/pages/victim-stories.php