Sign into an existing account

Procedurally off a bit but functionally 100% accurate. Here's how this dumb shit works. He will have to file a challenge to the civil asset forfeiture complaint that the DOJ will file in federal court. It is an in rem proceeding which means that the case is, as you described, against the cash itself. Important note: inanimate objects do not have constitutional rights. The interested party (owner) must file an answer within a certain time or he forfeits it. Even though it is being confiscated for a criminal related reason, it is a civil case which means that the government must prove (discussed briefly later) by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not / 50.01%+) that the money was, in a nutshell, used for or obtained from illicit acts. This is much lower than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard (~95%) for criminal cases. I do not know why it is like this but that's the way congress says it is going to work for now.

You are only technically wrong in saying that the money has the burden of proof for innocence. In function, that's exactly how it works. What actually happens procedurally is the government will allege in the complaint that the officers said it smelled like weed. Now, because it is a preponderance standard of more likely than not, with only that information available, it is more likely than not that the money was part of a drug deal and thus subject to forfeiture. Now the defendant has to produce some evidence that will overcome the smell evidence in order to flip the burden back onto the government.

Basically, the entire problem comes from the fact that the government is allowed to do asset forfeiture through civil proceedings with a lower standard. Also, it is a civil proceeding which means that the criminal constitutional rights do not apply. You can't plead the fifth in a civil case. I would say that the problem is that you shouldn't elect people to write laws that don't have law degrees but, let's be honest, they would probably do it this way since they are all corrupt fucking sub-animal pieces of garbage.

He flat out told the police he had a large amount of cash on him, so that they didn't find a pile of undisclosed money, and think it was suspicious and then seize it. Never trust the cops, they are not your buddies.

They were told by some one or some three letters.

The whole of "Civil Law" is designed to bypass Constitutional protections. It's purposely arranged so they can take/do things without charging the person, incurring a burden of proof, or even giving the person a right to confront their 'accuser'.