This should serve us all as a reminder to keep the law enforcement accountable at all times and reject any loophole, regardless of whether it makes their life of catching criminals easier or not.
Any right given to authorities will inevitably be misused, sooner or later.
The practice originally seemed to be in place to give discretion to officer to deal with druglords and people like that since proving everything is court is very hard, but since the incentives are all wrong(departments keep the proceeds), it seems to be quite abused.
A quick fix would be to use the proceeds for charity or to pay down the national debt. That way the incentives are atleast reduced somewhat.
I read in a comment on a related article yesterday that this was tried in Utah, in fact here's the link[1], tldr it was not successful at all.
The operative question would seem to be, how does one write a blank check to law enforcement to seize property with no judicial oversight or lawful reason required, but then make them promise by law to give it away rather than simply use it for their own personal/departmental reasons?
If you want to empower someone to be a thug and take peoples stuff, you have to recognize that Robin Hood was actually a work of fiction and consider that maybe nobody is going to actually do that. Apparently in Utah, everyone ignored the new law -- police, prosecutors, judges, the press, and even the voting public who passed the original ballot initiative, failed to hold anyone to account when the next election time came around.
What burden? The burden is on the owner, because he has all his assets being seized, making it much harder to defend himself now. That should never happen - certainly not in a "innocent until proven guilty" system (if that's still the case).
I think rhino369's point is that, whatever procedural arrangement might characterize the discourse, the actual burden of proof is on the owner - if they take action and prove their case, they get their possessions back. Until that time, the possessions are in the custody of the state.
Furthermore, I don't think it's true (at least not per the article) that a civil forfeiture proceeding puts a burden of proof on the state - it seems to be that the owner has an opportunity to petition for appeal, which if not taken, amounts to a forfeit by default.
Any right given to authorities will inevitably be misused, sooner or later.