That’s my point, to strip it of the profit, and make it a loss. Using your example, they take your $2500 car. It takes you $10000 to get it back. You are out $12500. So you then sue them for triple damages over attorney’s fees, *and* court costs.
This would need to be permitted by the state legislature, but would stop such nonsense cold.
In this case, the asset forfeiture laws have NOTHING to do with the situation. There's the problem. The car has been impounded as evidence. The police have not "seized" the car, nor has the family "forfeited" it. At this point, the family can talk with a lawyer about suing, and just for grins and giggles, let's say they DO sue. The court will kick the lawsuit out, as the car has not actually been seized, it is merely impounded for evidence and, due to an ongoing investigation/criminal case, the car will remain impounded.
Once the mechanic is convicted of his crime, there's the conviction. Under the new asset forfeiture law, the cops are well within their "rights" to then seize and keep the car.
If, on the off chance the mechanic is NOT convicted, then the family can immediately drive their car out of impound, AFTER paying the $$$$ for "storage fees" and such.
The only way the family could sue under the new law is:
1. The mechanic is NOT convicted, and
2. The police department keeps the car anyhow.
At that point, the family would then need to shell out the $10k for their $2.5k car. At that point, yes, your idea would come in handy.