> you have to tie the bill of rights in knots to justify civil asset forfeiture as constitutional
There is unfortunately some pretty deep precedent for states (note: less so the U.S. government) holding property while disputes around it were adjudicated, in some cases going back to the founding of our republic. For details look at the opinions in the cases IJ has previously filed.
The fact that the DEA ignored the 90-day timeline for filing a case, on the other hand, may be material if it can be shown to form a pattern of behaviour…
"holding property while disputes around it are adjudicated" is extremely different from "siezing your property without even charging you with a crime and then forcing you to go to court to prove your innocence"
There is unfortunately some pretty deep precedent for states (note: less so the U.S. government) holding property while disputes around it were adjudicated, in some cases going back to the founding of our republic. For details look at the opinions in the cases IJ has previously filed.
The fact that the DEA ignored the 90-day timeline for filing a case, on the other hand, may be material if it can be shown to form a pattern of behaviour…