[nika]

Actually, the document was written with the intention that anyone could read it and easily tell if their government was violating it or not. There have been a lot of people making up a body of work commonly called "Constitutional law" but much of that body of work seems to serve the purpose of trying to say that you can't just read it.

But if you read it, it is very clear.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It is cut and dry. All of these siezures are not taking evidence, they are stealing property.

Money is property, it is not evidence of any crime, especially when it is electronic funds in a bank account.

[cube13]

>"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This doesn't mean what you think it means.

It doesn't mean that the government can't take your stuff, full stop. It means that the government can't take your stuff without due cause and process.

Both of which were followed in this case, it appears. The indictment was posted here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2451482

[malnourish]

Constitutional studies largely exist because of the 14th Amendment and the necessary and proper clause. They do confuse things a bit.

Sometimes we can't rely on our elected officials, even though we should be able to; a SCotUS case might be the best way to change this.