In which states is the burden of proof on the state in civil asset forfeiture cases?

I am not an attorney, but I believe the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform act of 2000 places the burden of proof on the government. This may only be in respect to Federal cases, however.

Oops, sorry, that’s only for Federal Cases. Try this link.

I saw an episode of Cops recently where people tried to buy drugs from an undercover officer. They did so in a way that the person buying the drugs was in the car during the purchased. When they arrested the person they also told them that their car would be forfeited to the state because they used it in a crime. They had tow trucks lined up ready to take cars.

disgusting.

I had an idea for a new law to prevent “policing as a source of revenue”. All revenue collected through fines and other police actions must be returned as part of the income tax return equally among all who file income taxes. Not only would it stop this abuse, but encourage people to file their tax returns.

Any state that engages in civil asset forfeiture with the burden on the accused (or the “property” as the states would say) is a state morally worth overthrowing. That kind of behavior on the part of the government is predatory, unconstitutional, and unnecessary.

What a mockery of the law in rem asset forfeiture is. When in states that are this backwards, just treat their laws as obstacles, rather than anything worthy of respect.

In Tennessee, if you are caught in the act committing a felony crime with your vehicle, your vehicle can be forfeited by the state. this use to include only crimes dealing with drugs. the law changed about 6 years ago to also include property crimes, where the vehicle was used to transport stolen goods or drugs.

Try abanet.org and enter your search term… American Bar Association often has tables of state laws including specifics like burden