Comment by phkahler

>> the standard explanation is that because they aren't accusing a person (the owner of the money), but only accusing an inanimate object (the money itself), constitutional protections don't apply

That's easy to refute. By the time they take the cash, hand it to the feds, get a percentage back to locals, then a person wins in court and gets their money back... I don't think they give back the exact same physical cash that was taken as "evidence". So when they say it's evidence they are lying - it's not locked up with other evidence, it's taken to a bank and deposited.