But you still have to prove it. Police are seizing cash without proving anything, merely on the suspicion that someone carrying that much cash might possibly be

But you still have to prove it. Police are seizing cash without proving anything, merely on the suspicion that someone carrying that much cash might possibly be using it in connection with illegal activities. Heck, police are seizing assets that clearly were owned legally simply because of a tenuous connection with drugs (e.g. seizing a car because drugs may have been transported in the car at some point). Basically, the simply act of owning $10k in cash should not be considered sufficient evidence that you shouldn't be allowed to own that $10k. Regardless of the bar you're setting, that suspicion simply isn't proof of anything. The reason why I said it's arguably unconstitutional is because the way asset seizure works, the victim is put in the position of having to prove that they do legally own the asset, rather than having the police be put in the position of proving that they don't legally own it. Our justice system is based on innocent until proven guilty, so why does asset seizure work any differently? This is yet another bad consequence of the war on drugs, I just don't understand why our judicial system continues to allow for this perversion of justice.