Your argument that the victims were drug dealers has several problems that I can see:<p>1. Presumption of accuracy  Just because the cops claim that the money is &quot;Drug money&quot; doesn&#x27;t make it so.  As a victim of asset forfeiture, that money was claimed to be &quot;Terrorism&quot; money but it was laughable on its face.<p>2. Presumption of guilt.  Even if it was taken from a genuine drug dealer, the dealer is innocent until proven guilty, but the money is taken before this proof is achieved.  Thus this denies the dealer the opportunity to provide for his defense.<p>Someone I went to high school with was the victim of this. He was not a drug dealer, he was a doctor.  An oncologist who had a great many terminal patients.  He was raided by the DEA because he was giving these cancer patients &quot;too much&quot; pain medication.  His assets and house were frozen, he was taken to jail and his wife and kid were left homeless while he had to try and defend himself...with no money to hire a lawyer.   His wife worked part time as a receptionist in his office- so the prosecutor threatened to put her in jail as an accomplice, forcing his kids into the &quot;Care&quot; of the state if he didn&#x27;t take a plea deal.  He had no money for counsel, and no choice so he plead guilty.   This is a doctor whose &quot;crime&quot; was caring for his patients.  You would say he must have been guilty because he was convicted.  And therefor this is drug money, but that&#x27;s a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and misses the point that he was forced to plead guilty by having his ability to hire a defense team denied to him via the theft.<p>Finally, you&#x27;re being absurd to say that you have access to the courts and that they are impartial.  As my case showed me, the judge knew that the affidavit for seizure of the property was fraudulent-- he knew it, because he had been presented proof of it the week prior-- yet he still authorized the theft.   The cops and the judges and the prosecutors all work for the state, and the judges are not independant.  They are dependent on keeping their job by towing the line.<p>This is why cops and judges are almost never prosecuted.  No cop would dare testify, no prosecutor will bring charges and no judge would allow the case in his court.