It seems this is in between the civil forfeiture as it is applied in some places in the US (police seize mostly cash, immediately, regardless of any documentati

It seems this is in between the civil forfeiture as it is applied in some places in the US (police seize mostly cash, immediately, regardless of any documentation the owner might show, and can keep it unless the owner goes to court and successfully argues for it back), and the unexplained wealth orders of the UK, which if I recall correctly involve needing to convince courts to approve the seizure first, involve a chance for documentation, and are primarily used for major properties. With this, it seems police can seize goods immediately, but have to return them unless they can convince the courts otherwise. But, this is police seizing goods, and seemingly mostly small personal goods. How are people supposed to prove they acquired those lawfully on demand, immediately? While walking somewhere, can you provide documentation for how you acquired for all your clothes (yes, the photo apparently shows clothes being seized)? Your phone? Your laptop? Any jewellery, which might have been inherited? And, if this is somehow to combat street violence, why is the only concrete example of a seizure given in the article of someone with a watch and cash at an airport? For that matter, if the person was carrying that much cash at an airport, presumably involving an international flight, how were already-present currency controls not applicable? If she declared the cash, that would have involved some documentation; did they seize it anyway? If she didn't declare the cash, surely it could already have been seized? Or is this simply a matter of seizing possessions and arresting people who aren't read as being in the right class position to be carrying those possessions? It all seems rather strangely incongruous.