I am to this day amazed by some of the rulings of the Supreme Court. Extending eminent domain to include economic considerations is one. Another is ruling corporations have the same rights as citizens regarding election finance. But the all time irrational ruling has to be that civil forfeiture is not against the constitution.
The only justification for civil forfeiture not being against the fourth, fifth and eighth amendments of the Constitution comes from a ruling 1827 regarding a ship seized for piracy, "The thing is here primarily considered as the offender, or rather the offence is attached primarily to the thing." So the idea is that the items being seized are the offenders and the owner has no rights.
I guess the owners of the property should have taught the property better...
In effect the owner has no right to recover the property since they have no standing in the case. It is one of the most absurd arguments in any court in any land.
Why is it so few people seem worried about it? I guess it's one of those things where they don't expect to be impacted by it, so it's someone else's problem.