Comment by danbruc

Wait, what? In the US law enforcement can just take peoples' stuff and then the people have to prove that they are innocent in order to get their stuff back? Should this not be the other way around, law enforcement has to prove - within some reasonable amount of time - that the person is guilty, otherwise they get their stuff back, plus some compensation for incurred costs? But even if the person is guilty, why can the state take their stuff to begin with, at least beyond what is required or might reasonably be required to pay for fines or compensations or was acquired illegally?