Isn't it actually a bit more complicated than you make it out to be here? When in 2014, Yianni Sourovelis, 22, was arrested for possessing $40 worth of heroin, his first criminal offense, and police showed up at Sourovelis' parents' house in the Philadelphia suburbs and told them they were being evicted and began screwing doors shut, shutting off electricity, and telling the family their home would be gutted after it was seized by the state, wouldn't you agree that the parents of this individual have to do a bit more than "prove they are the owner of the their home" to stop it from being permanently seized? Don’t they in fact have the burden of proving (1) that they were not involved in the alleged and unproven criminal activity and (2) that they either had no knowledge that their property was being used to facilitate the commission of a crime or that they took every reasonable step under the circumstances to terminate such use? And by this, I mean isn’t your argument that they would simply need to show a deed to their property showing they owned it to prevent it being permanently seized false? Not to mention, it can be hard to prove a negative. If the state had to prove that this family had been warned, or their son had been arrested several times with drugs on the property, or emails showed they were helping supply his drugs or at least knew of his drug use, then I would be more inclined to accept your forceful defense of our country’s various drug forfeiture laws. But as currently drafted, enforced, and frankly abused, I remain strongly against them.