Civil Asset Forfeiture stems from older in rem cases, which were intended as a remedy when the owner of some object is unknown, or potentially not subject to th

Civil Asset Forfeiture stems from older in rem cases, which were intended as a remedy when the owner of some object is unknown, or potentially not subject to the country's jurisdiction, and thus prosecuting the owner is not feasible. I'm fine with use of in rem based seizures in the following cases: 1. The object in question is unlawful, or creating a problem, and nobody claims ownership of the object in question. (E.G. police find a stash house full of contraband, and the actual owners don't want to claim it for obvious reasons.) Please note that I would allow for in rem to be used when the owner is obvious if said owner claims "not mine". This of course would not prevent separate prosecution of the obvious person if the state feels they can prove ownership. 2. The owner is known (claimed), but is not subject to US jurisdiction, and is unwilling to subject themselves to US jurisdiction. (e.g. somebody from overseas owns a boat to be seized for non-payment of fees, or somebody from overseas is found to be unlawfully flying a drone in the United Sites and the drone is to be seized and auctioned because we cannot do anything to the actual owner.) Notice how neither of these are even remotely like the common scenario in civil asset forfeiture.