Technically, yes, actually, it is a kidnapping by the state - a deprivation of freedom. But is it justified? I would hope that in most cases it is. However, if

Technically, yes, actually, it is a kidnapping by the state - a deprivation of freedom. But is it justified? I would hope that in most cases it is. However, if it is not, that doesn't make the individuals doing the arresting culpable for the offence they were acting in good faith, but the state doesn't escape, or should not escape, culpability. If it can be shown that the state did not act justifiably (i.e. within its social contract with its citizens) then the individual is entitled to recompense for that crime. This is why, in some states (and, I would like to say all) if there is a gross miscarriage of justice the individual is granted monetary relief. The farce of "asset forfeiture" is in treating the asset, and not the holder of the asset, as an entity which may have civil claims brought against it. In effect, forcing the owner to act as its defender. This is a exploitation of the legal system. If they truly believed the assets were the result of a crime they should have to prove probable cause, and hence justify, their right to steal (i.e. seize/freeze) that property in preparation for a criminal/civil trial. If they lose that trial, then even so, the seizure was justified and everything is fine. The question now is, are we as a society comfortable granting the ability for a single individual, i.e. a peace officer, the ability to justify in its entirety, their actions, even with massive conflicts of interest? I would hope the answer is no. We have the judiciary to justify these crimes of the state and in so doing limit their effect on the innocent by preventing abuses of power due to conflict of interest. Universal accountability and review of justification is the key to preventing the tyranny of the few bad peace officers in positions of extreme situational power from destroying countless lives and reaping massive personal benefit while doing so. An effective way to do this is to take the position that hypocrisy is unacceptable. If it's an act which is unlawful for a person to commit, the state must actively justify itself (before the fact) in order to commit that same act, according to the social contract. If it doesn't, there may as well be no law - for what is the purpose of the law but to protect those without power from those with it.