Comment by Over2Chars

1) yes the burden of proof is shifted, but if the recourse is relatively simple administrative appeal (showing a source of income, a history of savings, a chain of withdrawals, to explain why you have $300,000 in small bills in your trunk) vs hiring a defender and a trial, that's seems like a reasonable trade off.

The history of civil forfeiture in maritime law suggests it arose when you captured a pirate of smuggling vessel. They are loaded with stolen or illegal merchandise. The owner of the vessel is in France. You seize it and send a letter to him saying "hey, if this is yours, come get it and tell us why you have it legally. Otherwise it's ours."

2. Lots of things facilitate corruption. This might be one of them, but even if we eliminated it, corruption isn't likely to go away (it is not the unique driver of corruption). Moreover, it may not be even a particularly significant driver of corruption in general (there may be specific cases where it is) - so removing it wouldn't impact all the forces that generate corruption. So removing it would have little or no impact.

That said, if the perception is that it is a corrupting force, it would be useful to make changes to make it seem less so: have all proceeds go to FEMA, for example, instead of back to the departments. Or specify how the recovered moneys can be spent - on buildings but not salaries - like jail improvements- so specific people cannot uniquely benefit.

And if corruption is the problem generally, addressing it directly is likely to be more effective than eliminating civil forfeiture and letting corruption go unchecked otherwise.