[MichaelBurge]

What about filing a claim of ownership? If the prosecution doesn't formally charge you with a crime within some amount of time after such a filing, you get it back without any further work. If they do, then it's held until the case is over.

It seems like it would allow them to handle abandoned ocean ships or drugs, which are the classical cases. And it lets everyone else get their property back, if they're willing to take the risk of admitting to owning property possibly used in a crime.

[harryh]

What about times where it's obvious that a crime has been committed but it's not clear who committed the crime? In that case there is no one for the prosecution to formally charge.

[MichaelBurge]

There should be some kind of consistent legal principle that tells you when something should be seized by the government.

It can't be, "Anything which is the proceeds of a crime can be seized by the government", because 90% of dollar bills have traces of cocaine on them and would be seizable.

I believe that "Criminals should not benefit from a crime" is one. Then, if someone files the paperwork to claim ownership of some item that was used as part of a crime, and his admission of ownership is not enough evidence to charge him, then in your case it hasn't been shown that a criminal has benefited from a crime when it's given to this person.

If it's known that either a husband or wife took $10,000 to murder someone, and it's unclear who did it, then neither could claim the money without effectively admitting guilt.

If multiple people claim the item, then the problem resurfaces and the government may end up keeping it. Most of the "police seized my $10,000" cases that work people up aren't like that, though.

It's possible that there are other principles that could be used; I don't know of any others that could apply.