For those unaware, here is an example:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2017/05/30/...

She let her son live with her, he sold less than $200 of marijuana, and her home (lived in since the 1970s) and car were seized as facilitating a drug transaction. She eventually won, after more than seven years.

> many of the victims are actual criminals

Very few of the victims are criminals.

https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/blog/law-enforcement-seized...

> One more data point supports this contention: At the federal level, at least, "the vast majority of forfeiture victims are never convicted or charged with a crime," according to Carpenter. Using data obtained via FOIA requests, Carpenter found that 87 percent of federal forfeiture proceedings were civil cases, not criminal ones. "It's troubling that 87% of the time the conviction appears to be irrelevant," co-author Lisa Knepper said.

Dog sniff is legally sanctioned to get around the fourth amendment. In these cases, the govt violates due process, excessive fines, etc. Recently SCOTUS agreed to take the case Culley v. Marshall to examine these: https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/supreme...

If you read the article you'd see just the opposite. People without any actual charge, or any actual evidence, who have had the state supreme court in Nebraska still side with 'law enforcement'. Because that is modern day policing. Hell, there was a Supreme Court case that sided with law enforcement that they have -no obligation- to protect citizens. It's why you get stuff like Uvalde. The police exist solely to enforce state authority, not to serve and protect.