> Because of a legal quirk, SWAT raids can be profitable. Rules on civil asset-forfeiture allow the police to seize anything which they can plausibly claim was the proceeds of a crime.
Isn't this true in general, and not only when SWAT is deployed to arrest the suspect?
> Crucially, the property-owner need not be convicted of that crime.
I would have thought this to be contrary to the US constitution, since it clearly breaks the presumption of innocence, but it turns out that it doesn't feature in the US constitution explicitly, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
Isn't this true in general, and not only when SWAT is deployed to arrest the suspect?
> Crucially, the property-owner need not be convicted of that crime.
I would have thought this to be contrary to the US constitution, since it clearly breaks the presumption of innocence, but it turns out that it doesn't feature in the US constitution explicitly, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence