[willcipriano]

> And legal systems of any nation are more than just the constitution.

In any case when a legal system clashes with the wording of the constitution it is that legal system that is wrong. That's what "highest law in the land" means. That is the entire purpose of having a constitution.

Experts love to hide behind "it's complicated!" but in this case they have nowhere to hide.

[eightysixfour]

What part of the constitution do you think it clashes with?

[willcipriano]

> 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.

Pull over a guy, take the paper cash out of his wallet without charging him with a crime. No amount of wordplay can make that constitutional in a reasonable persons mind.

[pc86]

I do think CAF as it's currently implemented is unconstitutional, but this clause doesn't make CAF as an idea unconstitutional. The entire point (originally) was to secure assets that you have probable cause to believe are funding or proceeds from crime. So you find someone with a trash bag full of pills and $300k in cash in their trunk after a legal search, you need a process to handle that money.

[willcipriano]

That process has existed since before America has, find probable cause someone is committing a crime, detain the suspect (you can get a warrant first but this is more common), get a warrant (can be done over the phone in a couple of minutes), put the cash away somewhere safe until the trial is over. If they are guilty of that crime and that cash was involved, great! If not you have to return it.

What we are talking about here is just taking the cash, sending you on your way and spending it, sidestepping your legal rights like access to a court provided attorney or a jury trial. It probably doesn't do much to prevent crime even, the fentanyl runners would much prefer you just take the cash they have on them and let them go.

[chrismcb]

But the way it works today is the "probable cause"is the fact the money is over 10k. No charges end up being filled, or they end up being dropped. But they don't give you the assets back. Even after proving they are legitimate. You still have to fight for it. As an idea civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional. Because it was designed to be an end around the constitution.

[s1artibartfast]

Take it as evidence until the owner goes to trial. If there is no speedy trial, return it to the owner.

[eightysixfour]

Please define reasonable in legal terms.