The DEA hired a TSA employee to tell them which passengers had cash in their luggage.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

I’m no expert, but I don’t think this is entirely correct. I mean to say that while it’s true that there’s no judicial action required before the immediate seizure, the government typically has a limited period of time to file a civil forfeiture action. In other words, the government has the burden of going into court as the plaintiff and showing enough evidence to prove, by preponderance, that the seized property is subject to forfeiture. The owner has the opportunity to appear on behalf of his property, of course, but as I understand the process there’s no path by which the seizure becomes permanent without a judicial determination.

Or am I unaware of some especially onerous statute somewhere?

No, at the federal level at least you are correct. In general civil forfeiture proceedings the government has 60 days to file the action. And I note that in Texas at least there is apparently a mechanism for forfeiture challengers to obtain their attorney’s fees.

[Bricker]

@muldoonthief

Yes. But it didn’t address why the govt. gets to mesh government/police powers such as seizing property suspected of being used in a crime with civil standards of proof to keep that property.

The gravamen of a criminal penalty is that it is punitive in nature: it punishes prohibited conduct.

A civil action is remedial – it seeks merely to remedy a harm, not punish.

The differing standards of proof associated with these two goals can be traced at least back to the late 1700s. But it’s worth a reminder that the words “beyond a reasonable doubt” do not appear in the Constitution and are a gift of the common law.