Ugh, so much misinformation. Having lurked here for a while HN seems to think civil forfeiture is the boogie man. To clarify a few things, at least on the county level:<p>1) There are always drugs when property is seized this way. I review every single civil forfeiture in a rather large county, and the affidavits officers submit read something like: &quot;I stopped Bob after an informant purchased a large amount of heroin from Bob, Bob had syringes, heroin, weed, a scale for weighing drugs etc... on his person, and a rolled up wade of bills&quot;. The money is then seized as proceeds of prohibited conduct.<p>2) IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO CONTEST A CIVIL FORFEITURE. The defendant is given a single piece of paper, that is insanely easy to understand, and simply has to sign the paper saying the forfeited property is not proceeds of a crime. They then have to appear in court, before a judge, and demonstrate this fact. The bar is not high, but I have never once seen this happen.<p>3) The money does not all go directly to the seizing agency. Much of it goes towards drugs programs, oversight for civil forfeitures, and other programs. See, for example: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.oregonlaws.org&#x2F;ors&#x2F;131A.360" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.oregonlaws.org&#x2F;ors&#x2F;131A.360</a><p>Perhaps at the federal level things work very differently and the process is abused, but every time I see these articles it really feels like an anomaly of a story is used to paint an entire program as being demonic, with little to no data to back up the conclusion.<p>edited for clarity, the statutory language is &quot;prohibited conduct&quot; not &quot;criminal activity&quot;