There are two important points that your critique ignores
> Half of the seizures were below $8,800.
> Asset forfeiture is an extraordinarily powerful law enforcement tool that allows the government to take cash and property without pressing criminal charges and then requires the owners to prove their possessions were legally acquired.
The majority of seizures are nowhere near the $75K figure you're concerned about. I agree that large amounts of cash are suspicious, but these seizures seem to draw the line somewhere well below your hyperbolic example. Suspicious activity is not a priori illegal.
Second, when NO criminal charges are made, the seizures are no different than government thuggery. Carrying large amounts of cash is suspicious, and should therefore influence the question of probable cause, which could then be used to gather evidence for criminal charges, but that is not happening in many of these cases. That's a fundamental problem that needs to be reported more widely.
> Half of the seizures were below $8,800.
> Asset forfeiture is an extraordinarily powerful law enforcement tool that allows the government to take cash and property without pressing criminal charges and then requires the owners to prove their possessions were legally acquired.
The majority of seizures are nowhere near the $75K figure you're concerned about. I agree that large amounts of cash are suspicious, but these seizures seem to draw the line somewhere well below your hyperbolic example. Suspicious activity is not a priori illegal.
Second, when NO criminal charges are made, the seizures are no different than government thuggery. Carrying large amounts of cash is suspicious, and should therefore influence the question of probable cause, which could then be used to gather evidence for criminal charges, but that is not happening in many of these cases. That's a fundamental problem that needs to be reported more widely.