[tialaramex]

One test the law likes for reasonableness is to ask a jury.

We presume the jury are reasonable people (unfortunately the US also screws up how juries work) and so if they have a consensus that must be reasonable.

The UK uses "double reasonableness" in it's anti-tax avoidance law. It says the jury should ask themselves if any reasonable person might have done this anyway. If your jurors can't conceive of how even one other reasonable person could think what you did made sense, except that it reduced tax liability, then in fact it did not reduce liability, your avoidance scheme doesn't work.

[peyton]

The broader question isn’t whether a specific action is reasonable in context, but whether civil asset forfeiture is constitutional. So it’s a question of law for the courts to decide, not a question of fact for a jury to decide.

[AnimalMuppet]

We'd love to see a constitutional ruling against civil asset forfeiture. It's the right thing.

In the absence of that, though, jury rulings against the specific seizure is the next best defense.