But I've often wondered how this could stand up to constitutional muster. I believe one of the arguments is that the criminal case isn't against you, but the property that was seized from you. So if it wants to push the case, your seized $1000 can sue.
When they do run into someone with enough gumption and resources to appeal, they immediately drop the charges against the money and return it minus fees, just to prevent the creation of specific precedent against the practice.
Hanlon's Razor is bullshit, by the way.
That said, it's the prosecutors that would have to keep the case active if disputed, and there's no incentive for them, except for a possible loss in the case where police overreach is proven. That's all the reason needed to not dispute most cases if they go far enough to actually require some work from the prosecutor.
> Hanlon's Razor is bullshit, by the way.
You and I live in different world then. Obviously, some portion of our worlds is entirely in our heads and doesn't conform to reality. I suspect I'm happier in mine than I would be in yours.