I believe GP is referring to asset forfeiture. Asset forfeiture is a legal fiction in which objects associated with a crime are charged. So if drug dealer was

I believe GP is referring to asset forfeiture. Asset forfeiture is a legal fiction in which objects associated with a crime are charged. So if drug dealer was transacting drug deals in his car, the government could seize the car and charge the car with a crime. The owner would then have to try to represent the car and prove the car's innocence in the crime. But because asset forfeiture is normally a civil proceeding, the burden of proof is much lower for the government (preponderance of the evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt). So even if the owner was found not guilty of the original crime, the asset can still be found "guilty" and seized. Here's a good flowchart on the rules that the owner must go through (at the federal level) to win their assets back: http://reason.com/assets/mc/2015_06/forfeitchart.jpg http://reason.com/assets/mc/2015_06/forfeitchart.jpg These two Wikipedia articles have more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction