Woah, seems crazy that the police can keep something that was technically stolen property and not return it to the original owner. How can a judge argue that it will just be used to transfer drugs again, it's not the drug offender's property and she wasn't accessory... That's not relevant to the case, the owner isn't using it to traffic drugs.
I'm also perplexed about this. Anyone's car could be stolen, and then used to commit any number of crimes. Maybe the woman in the article didn't report the car as stolen?
maybe, because it was her own son and she didn't want him to face more jailtime? I thought it didn't matter though, I thought the owner could choose not to prosecute, or tell them to drop the case.. or maybe that's on a state-by-state level.
IANAL, just confused.