They say that law enforcement agencies are addicted to the money and that this addiction has led to forfeiture-hungry agencies from which it's sometimes hard to retrieve property. The flip side, forfeiture proponents say, is that forfeiture is a powerful deterrent in the war on drugs. And the proceeds from seized property bolster important police work. When it works, forfeiture laws make the criminals pay for drug enforcement instead of law-abiding citizens. Under the seizure and forfeiture laws, regardless of the dismissal of criminal charges, the DPS can proceed with the forfeiture of the property.
Forfeiture is treated as a civil matter, so the level of evidence needed by the state is lower.
In the Bailey case, all the case officer had to do was file papers asking the Pima County Attorney to go ahead with asset-forfeiture proceedings. According to state statutes, the DPS had 60 days after the arrest to file for forfeiture or return the property. The DPS can file after that 60-day window only if a formal complaint has not been received demanding the return of the property. In Bailey's case, no paperwork was ever filed. In December, after two months of not hearing about his case or his truck, Bailey called the county attorney's seizure office.