> In an ideal world, seizures should be escrowed until a proof comes to light.
No: that deprives the person of their property, and their right to due process. (Not to mention the violations of the 4th covered in the article.) One should not need to prove one's own innocence to get their own stuff back.
I'll allow, under probable cause or a warrant, temporary seizures, but even that must have due process. The seizures in the article did not generally have either.
(I do sort of agree that, in the case the seizure was of an innocent person's belongings, that it be returned with interest. But that does not forgive/condone the human rights violations in TFA.)
No: that deprives the person of their property, and their right to due process. (Not to mention the violations of the 4th covered in the article.) One should not need to prove one's own innocence to get their own stuff back.
I'll allow, under probable cause or a warrant, temporary seizures, but even that must have due process. The seizures in the article did not generally have either.
(I do sort of agree that, in the case the seizure was of an innocent person's belongings, that it be returned with interest. But that does not forgive/condone the human rights violations in TFA.)