# How is civil forfeiture a thing? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 21, 2017, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804 "2017-07-21T15:17:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/41 "2017-07-22T00:27:30Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It’s my understanding that it originated with Admiralty law. Maritime authorities were given the authority to confiscate money and goods on the spot because very often the perpetrators were based in another nation that would simply refuse to punish criminals based there. While not the best solution, the exigencies of the situation pretty much forced them to it unless they wanted smugglers and such to just be able to sail blithely by with nobody able to do much about it. > > Obviously that doesn’t apply to crimes committed \*within the borders \*of the US. On land it’s just greed; legalized theft. Indeed, it was one of the causes of the American Revolution since so many of the revolutionaries were smugglers/pirates and opposed to any taxation of their livings. So: - The early Congress wrote forfeiture laws based on British maritime law to help federal tax collectors collect customs duties, which financed most of the expenses of the federal government in the early days of the republic. Seizures allowed government to confiscate property from citizens who failed to pay taxes or customs duties. - **[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States)** After some dabbling using it in Prohibition, the modern start was under Reagan in the early 1980s; the British immediately copied the Americans — bringing it all full circle — with the Drug Trafficking Offences Bill of 1984 under Ronnie’s partner in crime, Lady Thatch, leading to tremendous opposition to any forfeiture from Enoch Powell. He was particularly _annoyed_ at the idea banks would reveal details of people’s accounts. Before that, British bank managers had the same reaction as Swiss today to prying questions regarding their customers’ business. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/42 "2017-07-22T01:38:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In what specific case has it not worked that way? [Guillermo Espinoza’s case in Arkansas.](http://ij.org/court-orders-man-forfeit-nearly-20000-despite-no-criminal-charges-prosecutors-attempt-dismiss-case/) ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/43 "2017-07-22T01:41:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > At present, I argue that no state, and certainly not the federal government, require that the property owner prove their case. Forfeiture is a civil proceeding, and the government bears the burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence. So I get stopped by the cops. They notice I have $10,000 and seize it based on something about drugs. No drugs are found and charges are never filed. Are you saying all I have to do is go to my county court and file a court case and since there is no evidence of a crime I can get my money back just like that? No attorneys or endless court cases? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/44 "2017-07-22T01:50:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s not an accurate description. > > The government must prove, by preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeit. The property owner does not have to “prove that money wasn’t used in a crime to get it back.” In a hearing. Where they have free lawyers and you dont. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/45 "2017-07-22T01:54:01Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > In a hearing. Where they have free lawyers and you dont. And the rules are very technical and stacked against you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/46 "2017-07-22T01:56:33Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > So I get stopped by the cops. They notice I have $10,000 and seize it based on something about drugs. No drugs are found and charges are never filed. Are you saying all I have to do is go to my county court and file a court case and since there is no evidence of a crime I can get my money back just like that? No attorneys or endless court cases? Yes. Please note that I am taking your description as accurate: there is no evidence of a crime. This means the seizing agency cannot carry their burden to show, by preponderance of the evidence, that the money is the fruit of some crime; there is no evidence. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/47 "2017-07-22T01:56:56Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > So I get stopped by the cops. They notice I have $10,000 and seize it based on something about drugs. No drugs are found and charges are never filed. Are you saying all I have to do is go to my county court and file a court case and since there is no evidence of a crime I can get my money back just like that? No attorneys or endless court cases? A lawyer is strongly advised. Most civil forfeiture cases are either for people who are clearly and obviously guilty or for amounts under $200. In the latter case, you clearly wont bother with a lawyer and even taking a day off work is problematic. So free money for the police. :mad: The law has to be changed so the the funds are automatically given back unless criminal charges are filed within so many days. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/48 "2017-07-22T02:01:16Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I hope you agree that the Fourth Amendment prevents unreasonable search and seizure. > > Bull and shit. The 4th does nothing of the sort and you know it. Maybe I’m missing something, but: > [@Fourth Amendment](#): > > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against **unreasonable searches and seizures** , shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/49 "2017-07-22T02:04:55Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > Do you _have_ any opinions on the process, then? Sure. I think forfeiture laws should be premised on criminal convictions, and are unduly onerous and in some cases violative of the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines clause. That has nothing to do with correcting the inaccurate claims about the allocation of the burden of proof. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/50 "2017-07-22T02:08:09Z")
Bricker, would you like to offer a legal view on any of these cases: [10 Egregious Abuses Of Civil Asset Forfeiture](http://listverse.com/2015/06/29/10-egregious-abuses-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/). And for everyone else, here’s a fun quiz. One of these quotes was issued by the Cato Institute and the other was issued by the American Civil Liberties Union. Guess which is which: > [@](#): > > Under state and federal law, police departments can seize and keep property that is suspected of involvement in criminal activity. Unlike criminal asset forfeiture, however, with civil forfeiture, a property owner need not be found guilty of a crime - or even charged - to permanently lose her cash, car, home, or other property. And according to a new report published by —, “Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture,” most state laws are written in such a way as to encourage police agents to pursue profit instead of seeking the neutral administration of justice. The report grades each state and the federal government on its forfeiture laws and other measures of abuse. The results are appalling: Six states earned an F and 29 states and the federal government received a grade of D. Please join us for a discussion of policing, constitutional rights, and government accountability. > [@](#): > > Police abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws has shaken our nation’s conscience. Civil forfeiture allows police to seize — and then keep or sell — any property they allege is involved in a crime. Owners need not ever be arrested or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government. > > Forfeiture was originally presented as a way to cripple large-scale criminal enterprises by diverting their resources. But today, aided by deeply flawed federal and state laws, many police departments use forfeiture to benefit their bottom lines, making seizures motivated by profit rather than crime-fighting. For people whose property has been seized through civil asset forfeiture, legally regaining such property is notoriously difficult and expensive, with costs sometimes exceeding the value of the property. With the total value of property seized increasing every year, calls for reform are growing louder, and — is at the forefront of organizations seeking to rein in the practice. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/51 "2017-07-22T02:09:00Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > And the rules are very technical and stacked against you. And everyone in the court except you (and your lawyer, I guess) stands to profit if they rule against you. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/52 "2017-07-22T02:13:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Maybe I’m missing something, but: Come on, counselor. You of all people should use the _precise_ definition of words. “Prevent” means “to stop from happening.” Since unreasonable searches and seizures happen dozens of times a day in this country, the 4th Amendment does nothing to “prevent” them. All it does is give you some legal grounds for challenging a search. You are really quick to jump on anybody who says that members of the Trump Administration have committed felonies and treason. You wave the very specific legal definition of “treason” in the air like a banner. So you have to admit the the 4th Amendment “prevents” unreasonable searches and seizures" the same way PC187 “prevents” murders in California, ie not at all. ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/53 "2017-07-22T02:32:38Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Bricker, would you like to offer a legal view on any of these cases: [10 Egregious Abuses Of Civil Asset Forfeiture](http://listverse.com/2015/06/29/10-egregious-abuses-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/). Wow, any of those cases taking place in the Russian Federation would be seized as evidence of a criminal kleptocracy and corrupt police. Really, can’t be said too often, the old dinosaur USSR was the model for the new state of today. Just with better cameras. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/54 "2017-07-22T02:35:09Z")
Basically, there goes **Bricker** again, defending to the death a egregious abomination of laws simply by pointing out they they are, in fact, the laws. It’s just something that lawyers do. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/55 "2017-07-22T02:58:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s not an accurate description. > > The government must prove, by preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeit. The property owner does not have to “prove that money wasn’t used in a crime to get it back.” > [@k9bfriender](#): > > That’s the legal theory, and that’s great. > > The reality is that they take your stuff, and you have to prove that it didn’t come from a crime to get it back. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > I was just saying that it was great that he was pointing out the legal theory, but in reality, that’s not even how it works. > [@Bricker](#): > > In what specific case has it not worked that way? > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > [Guillermo Espinoza’s case in Arkansas.](http://ij.org/court-orders-man-forfeit-nearly-20000-despite-no-criminal-charges-prosecutors-attempt-dismiss-case/) In Guillermo Espinoza’s case the trial court found, by preponderance of the evidence, that the money was subject to seizure; this evidence included a recording between Espinoza and Priscilla Hernandez discussing the hidden money and hoping the search would not uncover it. What’s your basis for offering this example? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/56 "2017-07-22T03:01:49Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > Come on, counselor. You of all people should use the _precise_ definition of words. “Prevent” means “to stop from happening.” Since unreasonable searches and seizures happen dozens of times a day in this country, the 4th Amendment does nothing to “prevent” them. All it does is give you some legal grounds for challenging a search. You are really quick to jump on anybody who says that members of the Trump Administration have committed felonies and treason. You wave the very specific legal definition of “treason” in the air like a banner. So you have to admit the the 4th Amendment “prevents” unreasonable searches and seizures" the same way PC187 “prevents” murders in California, ie not at all. Fair enough. Although “not at all,” is equally inapposite. In at least some cases, concerns about the Fourth Amendment undoubtedly deter a search that would otherwise ensue. But your point is valid: The Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule arising therefrom act to deter unreasonable searches by making the fruits of those searches inadmissible. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/57 "2017-07-22T03:22:55Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Bricker, would you like to offer a legal view on any of these cases: [10 Egregious Abuses Of Civil Asset Forfeiture](http://listverse.com/2015/06/29/10-egregious-abuses-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/). Some of them are impossible to verify. #8: “An African-American man,” unnamed, “never got his money back.” I have no way to comment on what the evidence was, or why the forfeiture hearing went as it did. #7: “However, as is true of all forfeiture cases, the onus was on Caswell to prove his innocence rather than on the government to prove his guilt.” Factually untrue, How about you pick a case and I’ll take on the task of reconciling the reporting with the facts as presented in court? From a brief read, the article’s author is unfettered by concerns for factual accuracy. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/58 "2017-07-22T05:56:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In Guillermo Espinoza’s case the trial court found, by preponderance of the evidence, that the money was subject to seizure; this evidence included a recording between Espinoza and Priscilla Hernandez discussing the hidden money and hoping the search would not uncover it. What’s your basis for offering this example? That no crime was committed and the cash [had no link to any crime](https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2016/05/11/arkansas-allowed-to-take-20000-from-innocent-man-on-a-technicality). > [@](#): > > Prosecutors in Hot Spring County never charged Espinoza with a crime, but filed a complaint to forfeit the cash. Espinoza objected to what he called an unlawful search and also presented evidence of paychecks and tax returns to prove the money was lawful earnings, not drug money. So justify why this money should have been seized under civil forfeiture. And given the legal theft of CF, if I were carrying any cash I would hope the cops wouldn’t find it no matter how clean it was. [To answer your specifics](http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/11/arkansas-trooper-steals-20000-because-no) > [@](#): > > The transcript of that conversation shows Espinoza was anxious that Overton would find the cash, which is either evidence of his criminal culpability or perfectly understandable in light of what ultimately happened to his money. It also shows Espinoza talking to his girlfriend about their trip to Graceland and his plan to buy a truck in Memphis, which Williams read as rehearsal of a cover story but which could also be taken at face value. Williams also made much of “inconsistent statements” by Espinoza and Hernandez, which could be explained by their limited English skills and nervousness. > > Williams counted that nervousness as additional evidence of Espinoza’s involvement in drug trafficking. After all, why would an innocent person be nervous when confronted by an armed agent of the state intent on searching his vehicle, implicating him in drug crimes, and seizing anything of value he might find? At the same time, Williams suggested that Espinoza was not nervous enough: “It is very obvious that Mr. Espinoza, during the whole stop which was filmed, was very stoic.” Williams concluded that the state, which was no longer trying to prove its case, nevertheless had succeeded by meeting the “preponderance of the evidence” standard for civil forfeiture in Arkansas, meaning it was more likely than not that the money had something to do with illegal drugs. Williams rejected Espinoza’s argument that the stop, detention, and search leading to the seizure were unconstitutional. > > In his order, the judge noted statements such as, “What are we going to do? They just found the money,” and “Please don’t find it, please don’t find it” in determining that both Mr. Espinoza and his companion “knew that this illicit money was hauled down the road.” Absent from the same order was the obvious language barrier that existed between Mr. Espinoza and the arresting officer, the officer’s insistence that he had been a state trooper for sixteen years and there was only one reason someone would carry that much cash in his vehicle, the officer’s apparent refusal to be shown text messages between Mr. Espinoza and the person from whom he said he wished to buy a truck, or even Mr. Espinoza’s companion’s statement, “You didn’t tell me you had that money. You just told me we were coming to buy a truck.” > > Meanwhile, Mr. Espinoza presented the trial court with numerous paychecks from various construction jobs, as well as tax documents evidencing his argument that the money was lawfully earned. Nevertheless, the trial judge ordered forfeiture of the nearly $20,000. In response to Mr. Espinoza’s motion for reconsideration, the judge simply stated, “The Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider is denied and without merit.” He gave no further explanation. I am of the belief that unsubstantiated suspicions are not just cause for circumventing established judicial practices. I will also add that my experience (a traffic ticket) the judge found my guilty by a proponderance of the evidence because “He wouldn’t have issued the ticket if you weren’t guilty.” In this case there was no physical evidence just that he was carrying cash so he must be involved in some sort of drug crime. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/59 "2017-07-22T06:14:56Z")
My state of Colorado recently reformed the Civil Forfeiture law, a reform that the law enforcement community vigorously objected to. [Want to know what the changes were?](http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb17-1313) > [@](#): > > Seizing agencies are required to submit the biannual reports containing information known to the agency by specified dates; except that an agency need not include information if the disclosure of the information could endanger a person or disclose certain confidential information. Seizing agencies are required to pay civil penalties for failure to file or late filing of the reports. > > The bill directs the executive director of the department to submit an annual report to the governor, the attorney general, and the judiciary committees of the general assembly on seizure and forfeiture activity in the state. > > The bill prohibits seizing agencies from receiving forfeiture proceeds from the federal government unless the aggregate net equity value of the property and currency seized in the case is in excess of $50,000 and the federal government commences a forfeiture proceeding that relates to a filed criminal case. Notice the complete lack of protection from police actually seizing your property? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/60 "2017-07-22T14:34:51Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > That no crime was committed and the cash [had no link to any crime](https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2016/05/11/arkansas-allowed-to-take-20000-from-innocent-man-on-a-technicality). > > So justify why this money should have been seized under civil forfeiture. > > And given the legal theft of CF, if I were carrying any cash I would hope the cops wouldn’t find it no matter how clean it was. > [To answer your specifics](http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/11/arkansas-trooper-steals-20000-because-no) Are you asking me to re-weigh the evidence? The trial court heard the tapes, and the testimony. The trial court observed the demeanor of the witnesses. Why do you believe your recitation of the evidence should be weighed differently? You say, for example, that there’s another way to interpret the concern over the money being found. And that’s true. If this were a criminal conviction, I’d agree, because the evidence in a criminal case must exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt. So in a criminal case, when you show me another reasonable way to view the evidence, you’re talking about reasonable doubt. Here, though, the trial court merely has to find that when the evidence for and against is balanced against each other, there is a sliver more one way. Fifty-one percent, so to speak, is enough for preponderance of the evidence. If I may be so bold as to suggest what’s causing your reaction, it’s that the idea that the government can take so much money away on such a narrow showing as preponderance. It feels, at a gut level, wrong, because when he are punished by the government for criminal activity we are used to much more protective standards. And in my opinion, it _is_ wrong. But that doesn’t dissolve the obligation to correctly describe it. > [@](#): > > I will also add that my experience (a traffic ticket) the judge found my guilty by a proponderance of the evidence because “He wouldn’t have issued the ticket if you weren’t guilty.” In this case there was no physical evidence just that he was carrying cash so he must be involved in some sort of drug crime. In your traffic ticket case, I can certainly say that the judge’s statement is not a correct application of the law. So what? In this case, there was other evidence - the discussion between the passengers showed that they both knew the money was there (when they didn’t know they were being recorded) and then the female passenger feigned ignorance of the money in front of the officer, saying, “You didn’t tell me you had that money. You just told me we were coming to buy a truck.” I know it’s easier to make sweeping statements like “no evidence,” and “forced to prove your innocence,” instead of the more accurate “forfeiture should be based on more than the razor-thin ‘preponderance’ standard.” But it’s not accurate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804.md?page=4)