USA v. $124,700 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is not exactly new, but it is highly offensive none-the-less. That a subjective measure such as "preponderance" can justify the taking of substantial valuables absent actual evidence of wrongdoing, and in the face of plausible explanations to the contrary, is disgusting.
I contemptuously dissent. This is the sort of thing that creates scofflaws.
Here is the decision straight from the Court.
The War on Some Drugs is far more expensive than we think.