This isn&#x27;t about civil asset forfeiture or drugs at all.  I can sympathize with requiring that you be found guilty of something before taking all your stuff, but this isn&#x27;t even about that.  And even if it were, a public defender&#x27;s office that could take on that kind of case to help you get your money back when you&#x27;re innocent would help stop abuse of it.<p>What this case is actually about is someone who allegedly defrauded Medicare.  The state froze their assets so they could get back the stolen money after trial (it&#x27;s frozen, not forfeit, so they have to find him guilty).<p>His lawyer (who is not a public defender, incidentally) argues that he had a lot of assets before the alleged fraud.  But the response to that is that is that it&#x27;s not really fair to let someone defraud Medicare and then declare their assets not subject to a freeze because they&#x27;ve spent all the stolen money.  All that really does is incentivize thieves to spend the stolen money first and what good does that rule do?  If you have $5,000, steal another $5,000, and then spend $5,000, why can&#x27;t the state freeze your $5,000 whether you spent the stolen or non-stolen money?  Is it really fair to let you hire a high-price lawyer that others could only dream of when the bulk of your funds come from fraud?  Why does it matter which money they spent first?<p>You can find all this and more in the transcript of the oral argument:  <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.supremecourt.gov&#x2F;oral_arguments&#x2F;argument_transcripts&#x2F;14-419_h3ci.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.supremecourt.gov&#x2F;oral_arguments&#x2F;argument_transcri...</a>