[xg15]

> Civil forfeiture isn't a punishment for guilt or innocence. It's an adjudication that, more likely than not, nobody has an interest in the property that the law will protect.

How would that apply to the opening story in the article though? There the woman was rightful owner of the car but the crime was conducted by her son. So it seems to me she would have an obvious law-backed claim to the car as she obtained it lawfully and didn't conduct any crimes with it. Yet the judge still refused to return the car.

(The judge's argumentation seems extremely strange to me anyhow though and I can't imagine it would have survived with an attorney present.

He seems to have elevated the already bizarre requirement "prove that the asset was not involved in the crime" to "prove that the asset will not ever be involved in any crimes in the future", which is insane. That case seems to be protection of asset forfeiture mixed with blatant racism.)