@peachfront @freediverx @mekkaokereke @PJ_Evans I’ve never understood this … how is it not an unreasonable seizure under the 4th amendment?
@Chrisdowney Because of the legal fiction/conceit that the exercise of state authority (jusrisdiction) is over the property itself, not the owner. If the *thing* is connected to a crime, then the *thing* can be seized by the state and ownership rights are not implicated - or at least subordinate to the penal authority of the state.
@peachfront @freediverx @mekkaokereke @PJ_Evans@mas.to
@beckett @Chrisdowney @peachfront @freediverx @mekkaokereke @PJ_Evans Indeed conceited.
It is a 4th Amendment violation.
It’s either physics or made up. Human laws are made up. It is a violation not currently recognised by the Supreme Court.
It will be.