Radley Balko has an interesting article in Reason detailing the many abuses of the asset forfeiture system, which often allows police to seize property without compensation – even in cases where the owners have not been convicted of any crime:

Over the past three decades, it has become routine in the United States for state, local, and federal governments to seize the property of people who were never even charged with, much less convicted of, a crime. Nearly every year, according to Justice Department statistics, the federal government sets new records for asset forfeiture. And under many state laws, the situation is even worse: State officials can seize property without a warrant and need only show “probable cause” that the booty was connected to a drug crime in order to keep it, as opposed to the criminal standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Instead of being innocent until proven guilty, owners of seized property all too often have a heavier burden of proof than the government officials who stole their stuff. Municipalities have come to rely on confiscated property for revenue. Police and prosecutors use forfeiture proceeds to fund not only general operations but junkets, parties, and swank office equipment. A cottage industry has sprung up to offer law enforcement agencies instruction on how to take and keep property more efficiently.

As I have argued elsewhere, many such seizures are a fairly blatant violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which bars state seizures of “property” without “due process of law.” In many cases, the authorities hold on to the seized property for months at a time without giving innocent owners any opportunity to contest the seizure whatsoever. If that isn’t deprivation of property without “due process,” it’s hard to see what is. The Supreme Court recently passed up an opportunity to curb asset forfeiture abuses in Alvarez v. Smith, which I wrote about in this Findlaw column written before the Court threw out the case on procedural grounds. Hopefully, the issue will make its way back to the Supremes, and they will see fit to give innocent property owners at least some protection for their constitutional rights.

I am not optimistic that the political process will protect these rights on its own. As Radley explains, police departments and prosecutors in many areas have a vested interest in perpetuating these practices. In addition, most of the people whose property is seized in this way are relatively poor and lacking in political influence. There have been a few modest reforms over the years. But for reasons Radley outlines, they have only addressed a small part of the problem.