How naive is Jessica McBride?  So naive, that she's actually shocked that something like this might have happened (I'll actually link to Eugene's column whereas Jessica seems to only link to things about half the time):

The Milwaukee Police Department is accused of taking possession of a Mercedes-Benz convertible from a drug-addicted local businessman in return for agreeing not to prosecute him for cocaine possession.
...
"Last summer, representatives of the Beck family complained to this office that in lieu of not being charged with a misdemeanor possession offense, Mr. Beck signed over to your department a Mercedes-Benz SL55, reportedly worth approximately $100,000," McCann wrote to Hegerty on Dec. 22. The letter does not identify the officers involved.
...
McCann told Hegerty that Wisconsin law concerning the forfeiture of vehicles involved in the sale of illegal drugs did not apply in this case.

"The drug violation in this case, . . . possession of cocaine, is among those violations for which a vehicle is not subject to forfeiture," he wrote. "We believe the officers acted in good faith under this creative interpretation in justifying securing Mr. Beck's car, but it cannot stand up as a matter of law."

McCann urged the police to return the Mercedes to Beck's estate.

Jessica doesn't seem to think this passes the smell test:

On the face of it, this sounds very hard to believe. Remember that the police can't prosecute someone anyway. But they can refer a case FOR prosecution, obviously. Plus, the column was written by Eugene Kane, who's never seemed inclined to give the police any benefit of the doubt. Why would the police want some guy's Mercedes anyway?

Eventually she does concede that it's possible, but only because she doesn't like Chief Hegerty's "no comment" response.  Wake up Jessica!  Frankly, I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often in Milwaukee.  What I loved the most about Kane's article was the quote about "creative interpretation in justifying the securing of the car".  That was priceless.

The fact of the matter is that this sort of thing happens all the time in the drug war.  This was pretty shady, but there is actually a legal way for the police to "secure" possessions very similar to this.  It's called civil asset forfeiture, and it's one of the biggest threats to the constitutional rights of the people that exist.  Here's how it works.  If the government suspects that your property has been used during the commission of a certain of crime (usually drug related, but this is expanding), they will institute proceedings against that property, independent of any charges that they may bring against you.  In fact, you don't have to charged with any crime at all.  You could even be found "Not Guilty" of a related crime and still have this happen to you.  There are all sorts of cases like United States vs. $10,105 or United States vs. 2004 Cadillac Escalade.  Seriously.

During these cases, your property has none of the rights that you as a person do.  It's presumed guilty.  You have to produce evidence that your property wasn't used during the commission of a crime.  Even if your car was stolen, you reported it stolen, and the thief used it during the commission of a crime, it can and often times will be found "guilty".  That property is then either kept by the law enforcement agency that confiscated it, or is sold at auction with the proceeds going back to the agency.  This is one of the main funding tools used in the drug war.

Now then, it would appear that this case is different in that the police decided not to go through the hoops of filing a civil case against the Mercedes Benz, and that Wisconsin doesn't have nearly the draconian forfeiture laws that the federal government has... yet.  It's a sure bet though, that if the feds had been involved in this case instead of some local cops, they would have gotten this car anyway.

So wake up and smell the injustice Jessica.  This is just the tip of the iceberg.  And good job Eugene... this was an excellent example of where the drug war is going wrong.