Asset forfeiture is one of those things that sounds almost reasonable, usually because it's pitched as seizing Pablo Escobar's Lamborghini or similar. But in re

Asset forfeiture is one of those things that sounds almost reasonable, usually because it's pitched as seizing Pablo Escobar's Lamborghini or similar. But in reality it's open to abuse, routinely abused (as mentioned here) and the Supreme Court should smack it down (well, maybe not this Supreme Court). For example, abuse of forfeiture in Philadelphia [1]. There are cases where a teenager is arrested with selling small amounts of cannabis and then his parents have to repeatedly fight to not have their house seized as the proceeds of crime. In the very minimum, asset forfeiture should require a criminal conviction. If you, the government, want to seize $1 million as the proceeds of drug trafficking, you should be required to convict someone with trafficking $1+ million in drugs. And I don't mean "street value" of drugs in their possession. Anything less should be ruled as unconstitutional by virtue of being an unreasonable search and seizure. [1]: https://whyy.org/articles/inside-the-philadelphia-das-side-hustle-selling-seized-homes-to-speculators-and-cops/ https://whyy.org/articles/inside-the-philadelphia-das-side-h...