This example from the article seems illustrative: > That should have been enough to build a significant federal case with a long mandatory prison sentence, but

This example from the article seems illustrative: > That should have been enough to build a significant federal case with a long mandatory prison sentence, but that was not what happened. Court records show the Justice Department prosecuted the $76,869.94 in a civil asset seizure case. But it did not prosecute Salazar. Instead, Salazar was booked into jail and released the same day; his lawyer, John Passanante, said he has not been charged as a result of the search. Neither the DEA nor prosecutors would explain why. There are legal restrictions on when law enforcement officers are allowed to use wiretaps and other searches. Rather than enforce these limits directly, the US court system adopted the position that limits on searches would be enforced only by excluding evidence that resulted from illegal searches - but that those who conducted the illegal search could not, themselves, be punished for it. Then later, as the jury trial system and other procedural safeguards broke down, this stopped mattering, since there aren't very many trials to exclude evidence from anyways. In this case, the Justice Department got what it wanted: about $77k in cash. If he had been poor and not had a proper lawyer, he would've also spent significant time in prison.