How can warrentless seizures be Constitutional?

"Deodand" is defined as "any personal chattel which was the immediate occasion of the death of any reasonable creature, and which was forfeited to the crown to be applied to pious uses, and distributed in alms by the high almoner"(emphasis in original). BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 436 (6th ed. 1990); "At common law the value of an inanimate object directly or indirectly causing the accidental death of a King's subject was forfeited to the Crown as a deodand. The origins of the deodand are traceable to Biblical and pre-Judeo-Christian practices, which reflected the view that the instrument of death was accused and that religious expiation was required. The value of the instrument was forfeited to the King, in the belief that the King would provide the money for Masses to be said for the good of the dead man's soul, or insure that the deodand was put to charitable uses. When application of the deodand to religious or eleemosynary purposes ceased, and the deodand became a source of Crown revenue, the institution was justified as a penalty for carelessness" (citations omitted). Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 680-81 (1974).

Thus, under civil asset forfeiture law enforcement officials can seize a person's car, boat, airplane, bank account, currency, or other tainted chattel without a notice or hearing, upon an ex parte showing of mere probable cause to believe that the property has somehow been "involved" in a crime.(33) Since the property itself is deemed the offender,(34) the case then proceeds in rem, against the property, not the person, and, the government's burden is significantly reduced to a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.(35) "And the probable cause showing may be based on nothing more than hearsay, innuendo, or even the paid, self-serving testimony of a party with interests adverse to the property owner."(36)

freeman3 wrote:Well, a search and a civil forfeiture action are distinct. In other words, the police could get consent to search the vehicle (or home, etc) and that requires no proof at all. Or they could have probable cause to search the vehicle. Once they recover something these civil forfeiture laws allow the police to seize the property in a civil action under a civil proof standard because the action is against property and not a person (so U.S. v $20,000 or something like that). So the idea is that in drug cases for example where there is not enough proof for a criminal conviction at least the police can hinder the drug trade by seizing assets. But these laws appear to be being abused.