I have to agree here. The author, I would argue, does the topic a disservice by not presenting the details of the state's arguments and evidence against Bouldin, and not more clearly distinguishing stories of two methods here.
The "abandonment" form and negotiation, sounds quite a bit like legalized bribery. But with Bouldin, given the evidence (to what you quote, the supreme court summary [1] adds that his prior conviction involved twelve pounds of marijuana, and that his car had a vacuum sealer and boxes of vacuum seal bags) he was, more likely than not, on a trip to smuggle marijuana.
But rather than being something to be hidden in discussing the case, that Bouldin was more likely than not to be planning on smuggling is, I would argue, an example of one of the major problems with civil forfeiture: it subverts the justice system by moving cases from criminal standards of beyond reasonable doubt to civil standards of preponderance of the evidence. The American justice system is not built on convicting people who are more likely than not to be guilty, nor on declining to even prosecute them, which might be much less profitable to the county, in favor of just taking their money.
And at the same time, that it uses civil cases is what makes it harder to combat. It doesn't seem like the courts here had to be willing participants in this behavior, or accept ridiculous evidence, they just had to apply the law and civil standards. The money was more likely than not to be for the purpose of smuggling marijuana. With those standards, it doesn't seem likely that Bouldin had much of a case. The problem is that those are not supposed to be the standards, and that the process seems to create very problematic incentives.
Without taking an opinion on drugs themselves, or laws around them, a cynical view here is that civil forfeiture used in this way actually makes it in the interest of the county to encourage drug trafficking through their jurisdiction, and to avoid catching traffickers with drugs, or catching them too often. How much more convenient it must be to simply take some cash, without the need to actually arrest and prosecute anyone. And how much more profitable, rather than imprisoning a trafficker, to let potential traffickers continue on their way, their cash seized, to continue trafficking and thus have some chance of being caught and have their cash seized again. And surely it would not be wise to take money too often, or make trafficking too difficult, along that route, in which case traffickers might choose to take their business elsewhere. It seems to make the process more like a bizarre and adversarial tariff scheme rather than anti-drug enforcement.
So, in those senses, even if it is mostly, or even only, taking money from likely traffickers, it is still extremely problematic. There should not be a need to hide this when discussing it.
[1] https://supremecourt.nebraska.gov/state-v-eighteen-thousand-...