Quote Originally Posted by TGS View Post
The difference being that person then has to go through trial, and innocence is presumed.

The current legal standard at the federal level is that there is no requirement for a trial, and the person must prove their innocence.

The entire concept and the justification from that random 1826(?) SCOTUS case is absurd and smack in the face of the 4th Amendment. The idea that the property has no rights because it's a civil suit against the property, not a person, yet property belongs to and was seized from a person, property which is protected under the 4th Amendment...
There is no requirement for a trial, per se, but the claimant (presumed owner) can get to court. Then burden is on the government first, not the claimant. If the government meets its burden and shows the link between the property and the crime, the person can say they were an "innocent owner" and had no knowledge of the criminal acts. They have to prove that aspect, of course, but that's no different from any other civil case.