&gt; Which county is that, and is your county representative of all counties in the US?<p>Multnomah County, Oregon (I cited to our state statute though... most that I have seen are very similar). Seizure law is either State or Federal.<p>&gt; If that&#x27;s usually the case, why wasn&#x27;t Bob arrested? In your scenario, he had illegal drugs in his possession, so an arrest seems more appropriate than a simple seizure.<p>Bob usually is arrested. Bob often pleas out, rats out his friends and is not charged, or occasionally is arrested and not charged because the DAs office is overworked as it is. The civil forfeiture is entirely separate from the criminal proceedings. I agree though: for example, the young man that was on the train a while back who had a large amount of money on his person should not have had it seized. That was absurdly bogus. But, as far as I can tell, that was an anomaly.<p>&gt; Lets say Bill, who is unbanked, wants to buy a car. He saved the money for it in cash under his mattress, and now has $3000. He&#x27;s transporting it, and a cop pulls him over, thinks &quot;CASH == DRUG MONEY&quot; and seizes it.<p>First, Bill would have to have drugs on him<i></i>, at least in the State of Oregon, and most states. That is what constitutes &quot;prohibited conduct&quot; under the seizure statutes. Also, having a bank account does not matter. This is a civil case, so Bill would just appear in court and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the money is not from drugs. He could say &quot;I have a job, this is my savings&quot; or &quot;my grandmother gave me $3,000 to buy a car.&quot; No need for loads of evidence - opposing counsel likely cannot refute anything he says. A judge would then order his money returned. It is that simple. Also, if the seizing officer did not have probable cause to believe the funds were proceeds of prohibitive conduct to begin with the judge would return the monies.<p>Caveat - I think I sound super pro-seizure here, but with all the bad stuff the government does it bugs me when something like this gets blown out of proportion. I guess you can argue that keeping proceeds of drug dealing is alright - usually it is cocaine, heroin, and meth - but this all feels very tin-foil-hatty from the perspective of someone who reviews civil forfeitures every day. I could also be jaded by living where I do - our court system and police seem to be behave themselves well compared to the rest of the country.<p>addition: <i></i> there are other portions of the statutes that allow for seizure of profits from other conduct, like if you subject someone to indentured servitude, but these portions of the statute are seldom, if ever, used to seize funds or property. I am honestly not sure why.