The keywords which require definition are "Unreasonable search and seizure"
One person's "reasonable," may be another person's "unreasonable"
Many very fine citizens think it is "reasonable" to seize the funds associated with criminal activity.
So do most courts.
Yep. Criminal activity, proven beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law.
That hasn't happened there.
It is not a requirement of Civil Asset Forfeiture laws. No person need even be charged with a crime. The asset is taken with the presumption that the asset is 'guilty' of being the result of illicit activity or used there in, and no proof is needed beyond that suspicion for the government to keep it.
Contrary to the presumption of innocence of a person, the asset is deemed 'guilty' and taken, and the only recourse is for the owner to sue the government to get it back, a proposition which is expensive and has no guarantee of returning the asset, even to someone who is innocent.
If the policeman wants to search your vehicle and you decline, is that probable cause? That is what the whole dog sniff is for--to get probable cause.
Some consider it so, because otherwise, you wouldn't have anything to hide.
As someone who commonly had a 1 ton van full of gear, computers and scientific equipment, and personal effects on the way to and from well sites, the last thing I needed would be for someone who had no regard for the contents of that vehicle, on which my making a living depended, dragging my stuff out on the side of the road and digging through it without regard for sensitive equipment. That, and when traveling from a well, I had commonly worked between 12 and 24 hours prior to loading up and driving home. Tired, but not to the point of falling asleep at the wheel, I might not be so patient, diplomatic, nor really see the need for someone to go digging through my stuff on a fishing expedition.
Argue with that, though, and now you are "resisting" or "interfering with an investigation", so protesting that 'there is nothing to find' is a crime, too. Now, you can be arrested for a chargeable offense.
Those who watch the shows like "Cops" may be inured to the fact that obviously the people being patted down, having their cars searched, handcuffed and having their pockets turned out invariably are doing something illegal. Yeah, what's the fun of showing mom and pop getting shook down and not getting arrested for drugs or paraphernalia? It makes for lousy reality TeeVee, but the message that gets across to the average viewer is that somehow this only happens to the guilty, never to innocent people. In the meantime, those same TV watchers will be subtly convinced this only happens to bad guys and never to people who are conducting legitimate business or simply in transit.
If there is a reason, some probable cause other than being suspicious of everyone as a profession and seeing something they don't understand, that's one thing. Picking people at random isn't probable cause. Taking their stuff without charging them with a crime isn't right, and without convicting them, there is no standard of proof that anything is the result of illegal activity other than "suspicion" by someone who is paid to be suspicious. That's a far cry from "beyond a reasonable doubt".
