If the people from whom the property was seized were denied (or not notified of) their rights to contest the forfeiture action, that would be something to be upset about. I don't see why we should be upset that the government took civil action without filing criminal charges; the civil burden of proof is lower than the criminal burden of proof because things like imprisonment, execution, loss of voting rights, etc., aren't on the table with similar actions; consequently, the level of evidence with which it makes sense to initiate criminal process is different than that for which it makes sense to initiate civil process.

> The problem is that legal standard is that the government merely has to establish "reasonable suspicion that there was a crime", while the person has to establish "a preponderance of evidence that there was not".

The initial seizure proceeds based on reasonable suspicion, but the goverinnment has the burden of proof to show, by preponderance of the evidence, that the seized property is subject to forfeiture under the law.

(The owner may have the burden of proof for defenses that apply to prevent forfeiture of property that is otherwise subject to forfeiture, such as the "innocent owner" defense, where the property was subject to forfeiture because of its relation to a prohibited act, but the owner was uninvolved in the act.)

> A quick summary is that a couple was indicted of a crime and successfully defended themselves. In the process the government seized a home through civil forfeiture, and the forfeiture stood because the couple was unable to prove the crime did not happen.

Er, no. What that source reports on is not that at all. It reports on the couple being indicted of a crime, and, as a consequence of the indictment, property that would (according to the government) be forfeitable under criminal forfeiture (which has the criminal burden of proof) being seized so that it would be preserved. The couple, arguing that the seizure order was overly broad, sought a hearing on whether the seizure was in error, arguing that the broad seizure impaired their right to counsel of their choosing for the criminal trial; this is what the Supreme Court turned down.

This isn't a case about civil forfeiture (the original seizure was to protect civil forfeiture, but the appeal was about the broader seizure under the superceding indictment which was to protect assets targeted for criminal forfeiture), it doesn't address a target acquitted of a crime and where forfeiture still occurred (this does happen in civil forfeiture, but this isn't an example), and it doesn't have anything to do with the owner not being able to prove a crime didn't happen.