Yeah, sorta, I guess... But IMHO that's like saying a law which prohibits the government from getting bored and bulldozing somebody's house is "how it should be done"... It's better than a law stating the opposite, but the simple fact that it's become necessary means we're past the canary in the coal mine WRT government corruption.android wrote:This is absolutely how it should be done.
Speaking of which I'm kinda curious about the legal justification for it working any other way... I mean if the government's premise is that they can seize the assets of criminals because <reasons>, they can't continue to use the same justifications once they've failed to prove you're a criminal. Wouldn't laws that state otherwise be a violation of the 4th amendment?