Better, I think, would be to pass a law that says "civil asset forfeiture is no longer a thing." The problem then would be "so what do we do with property that should be seized by the state?"
The fire department gets called to an exploded meth lab containing a few dead bodies and a safe containing $200,000. What do?
Assuming such a thing exists. . .
> The fire department gets called to an exploded meth lab containing a few dead bodies and a safe containing $200,000. What do?
I'm not sure I see how the fact that meth was present changes anything there (i.e., vs. a house fire with a few dead bodies and no meth). If some agency wants to go through a court proceeding to establish that the money was used illegally that's fine. The problem with civil asset forfeiture is it's done without any of that process.
Just don't. God forbid a drug dealer keep his car.
It hurts society less to not seize things than to have the police routinely seizing things on the pretext of suspicion of involvement in a crime.
There is no such thing, so that is not a concern.
Find out whose money it was, and wrap it up in their probate. This should be nothing to do with the police.
Or what does „wrap it up in their probate“ mean?
If you don't get convicted...well sounds like there was no crime
> Find out whose money it was, and wrap it up in their probate. This should be nothing to do with the police.
The example was a meth lab though and the claim was "This should be nothing to do with the police.". Is operating a meth lab not a crime?
If literally nobody--including the accused--claims it, it's unclaimed property [1].
Allowing specific state actors to actively claim these goods via civil forfeiture (and bypass these systems) has always been improper. Law enforcement is untrustworthy in many locales, so this is unsurprising.