"Also, one has to wonder why the basic principle of the state having to prove guilt needs to be upended with civil asset forfeiture. If you are alleged to have

"Also, one has to wonder why the basic principle of the state having to prove guilt needs to be upended with civil asset forfeiture. If you are alleged to have murdered someone you are assumed innocent, but for civil asset forfeiture you are assumed guilty?" This is civil vs criminal law. In civil cases you do not have the right to an attorney and hearing can be ex parte. The burden of proof is only more likely than not. So you have one-sided cases with no representation for the asset. These same lack of protections are being exploited for things like red flag laws, proposed abortion laws, etc. It's the same sloppy paradigm - too much work to do things under criminal law due to pesky rights, so just move it to the civil side.