> However, after further inspection that's totally acceptable, because cops mostly (?) go after bad people, So let's sum it up. You agree that the cops can se

> However, after further inspection that's totally acceptable, because cops mostly (?) go after bad people, So let's sum it up. You agree that the cops can seize property without any evidence and require the original owner to get a lawyer prove they are innocent before they get their property back. You believe the idea of "guilty until proven innocent" is unimportant, because the police are mostly going after bad people. And it doesn't bother you that the police departments actually get to keep the stuff their seize. You don't see any possible conflict of interest when the police departments can just seize property and keep it and never present any proof at all unless the person they confiscated it from spends a lot of money on legal assistance, and often not even then. To me this reads like some dysfunctional dystopia, but then I find strongly authoritarian societies frightening.