The right of the people to be secure in their ... effects, against unreasonable ... seizures, shall not be violated
The building was part of the person's effects. I don't understand how your argument is legal (not that I don't believe you - civil forfeiture has been going on long enough that I assume SCOTUS has heard a sampling of cases).
It beggars belief that this practice has stood for decades.
Seizing objects violates the owners rights, not the objects rights.
Another angle of defense might be to ask if it's even possible to violate the 6th amendment. What would violating the 6th amendment look like? I suspect the answer will closely resemble civil forfeitures.
If that's the case, then what's the point in seizing it? The crime has already been committed, the pile of money being taken doesn't change that one bit.
If I use a payphone to order a hit, is it reasonable for the government to come rip it out of the ground? What if I use a freeway to smuggle drugs? Now the road must be torn out?
Money is fungible and has all sorts of uses. Any particular pile of cash is no more or less likely to be intrinsically criminal in nature. Just like phones and freeways.
The point is to make the crime unprofitable so people will not want to do it. This is not a crazy policy assuming the crime actually happened. The ridiculous part about civil asset forfeiture is that no one has to prove a crime even occured. The onus is on the pile of money or whatever to prove its innocence.
That's a great question. Unfortunately I don't have the answer but I believe it has something to do with civil v. criminal cases. I just know that's the line of thinking that these top legal minds are using to justify this bs
> People have constitutional rights, objects do not
I'm pretty sure that's been modified to US people on US soil, at least 100 miles from a border, have constitutional rights, but those rights were all intended to mean something different than what they actually say.
The building was part of the person's effects. I don't understand how your argument is legal (not that I don't believe you - civil forfeiture has been going on long enough that I assume SCOTUS has heard a sampling of cases).
It beggars belief that this practice has stood for decades.