If I were pulled over with hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash I would be expected to prove that it was obtained legally. Unfortunately for the persons involved here the cash was obtained in a manner that is not legal in the United States.
To be clear, I think Civil Asset Forfeiture should be abolished and that all recreational drugs should be made legal. However, that is not the case and I don't think these particular drug dealers should get a pass just because they have more money / political clout than other drug dealers.
To make it difficult for drug dealers to continue selling and transporting drugs by seizing proceeds and any property used in those activities, especially in cases where criminal prosecution is impossible or impractical.
I'm on board with abolishing it, but this isn't even a case of a laws unjust, unintended consequences. It's a case of business owners gambling on a known risk and losing.
Now, because the sheriff's office isn't filing charges, it's immaterial to the TRO whether Empyreal was within the law.
That’s not how “innocent until proven guilty” works. It’s the government’s job to collect evidence to prove the law was broken. Source: I served as a federal juror in the last six months. During voire dire, one juror said something like “well, yes - the defendant has to prove his innocence.” This got us a lecture from the judge: we must assume they’re innocent, and the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.