They're usually argued against the actual item being seized, not the owner of the item. Since a pile of money can't really hire an attorney, there's no argument to the contrary, and the state wins.

That's not how it works.

Anyone can put in a claim on the property (most commonly the person that it was seized from) and argue in front of a court (with a lawyer) that they are the rightful owner.

That's after the seizure happens. But during the seizure, you'll have cases like State of California vs $25,000 in cash.

It doesn't really matter what sort of administrative name is put on the case. An individual who files a claim on the property still gets their day in court. That trial represents a check on the power of the police which means (as I originally stated) that this power is not unfettered.