This story out of Lima, Ohio, via Overlawyered, is a pretty good example of why forfeiture law isn’t nearly as much fun as some people think. 

Lima Police Department officers originally took the [$402,767] from his house but the FBI stepped in and took it from the Police Department. Ricks has not been charged with a crime and was cleared in a fatal shooting of one of the robbers but still the FBI has refused to return the money, he said.

“They are saying I have to prove I made it,” he said.

The 63-year-old Ricks said he and his wife, Meredith, saved the money during their lifetime in which both worked while living a modest life.

Well, yup, that’s pretty much how forfeiture works.  Once cash finds it’s way into the very official hands of our government, the burden shifts to the citizen to prove it’s legal, since it’s presumptively criminal proceeds.  Why?  Because it’s cash!

Cash, cash, cash.  We’re America.  We don’t have cash.  We use credit cards.  You can’t get into debt with cash, you know.

It’s not like Ricks is totally pure.  Aside from the fact that he shot and killed a robber in his house as his son was being stabbed, he also had some pot in there.

Police originally took the money after finding marijuana inside Ricks’ home, which Ricks said he had to help manage pain. 

“I smoke marijuana. I have arthritis. I have shingles, a hip replacement,” he said.

Ricks, who is retired from Ohio Steel Foundry, said he always had a safe at home and never had a bank account.

Isn’t there a law that says you have to have a bank account? 

On the other hand, maybe Ricks work at Ohio Steel Foundry was a front for his marijuana dealing operation.  Say, did anybody notice if he had a Lincoln Navigator out front with blacked out windows and “light effects?”  Maybe he was wearing a diamond encrusted Rolex while sipping Cristal?  No?

Now you know what the flip side of forfeiture law looks like. 

“The law of forfeiture basically says you have to prove you’re innocent. It’s terrible, terrible law,” he said.  The law is tilted in favor of the FBI in that Ricks need not be charged with a crime and the FBI stands a good chance at keeping the money, Gamso said. 

“The law will presume it is the result of ill-gotten gains,” he said. 

Still Ricks can pursue it and possibly convince a judge he had the money through a lifetime of savings. Asking the FBI usually doesn’t work, he said.

“The FBI, before they would give it up, would want dated receipts,” he said.

I hope he kept the dated receipts.  Actually, I don’t want to be so flip about this travesty.  But having watched forfeiture work its magic, and watched as people applaud when this absurd system shifts the burden to the unpopular defendant, I can’t help but wonder whether they will love it as much when the victim of forfeiture law doesn’t turn out to be the bad guy.  Same law, why should it be any different when it strikes too close to home?