TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote: In the civil forfeiture case, because the city/state/county has the property, they really aren't under any obligation to release it. The only "arm twist" that is available is the court system and that costs money. Often a lot of money.

And they count on that. Say for example they seize $100,000. You're acquitted and not convicted of anything. Then you have to file suit to recover your own money. Often money for which you have receipts/bank withdrawl records/etc. Your suit is met with an offer to settle for less than half. And the unstated part is that you will easily spend far more than you'd recover in legal fees. The gov't has lawyers on the payroll and it doesn't cost them any money (I know the lawyers bill, but it's not like it's THEIR money being spent) to keep kicking the litigation ball down the road. So most are forced to settle simply due to economic realities.

Good bill. Lot of stories about people having cash, jewelry, etc. confiscated and not returned despite no conviction. If you have a large sum of cash, they take it. Then you have to sue (with the requisite expense) to have it returned. In a lot of cases the government will offer to "settle" for a percentage of what they took. With the implied threat that the legal proceedings to get the rest back would be costly.

But my big thing is the Constitution has prohibitions against depriving citizens of life, liberty, or property absent due process. The confiscations take place outside the due process bit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiGRMD4NXVA