&gt; To clarify a few things, at least on the county level:
&gt; I review every single civil forfeiture in a rather large county<p>Which county is that, and is your county representative of all counties in the US?<p>&gt; 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 criminal activity.<p>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>I think most the criticism of &quot;stop and seize&quot; stems from the the cases where a seizure was made without an arrest, perhaps under a dubious theory like &quot;cash == drug money&quot;.<p>&gt; IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO CONTEST A CIVIL FORFEITURE
&gt; 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>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>How exactly does Bill go about demonstrating to the court that his money <i>was not</i> proceeds of a crime, are they just going to take him at his word?  What if he employed irregularly or informally or doesn&#x27;t meticulously keep his receipts?  What if he physically can&#x27;t make it to court?  What if he&#x27;s just not smart enough to make an articulate argument and is too poor to hire a lawyer?