&gt; The seizure happened under civil forfeiture law, a the second paragraph of The Economist article makes that clear.<p>The <i>initial</i> seizure happened because property was targetted for civil forfeiture, the expanded seizure happened because property was targetted for criminal forfeiture, the request for a pre-trial hearing (which was denied leading to the series of appeals that ultimately reached the Supreme Court) was for a challenge to the criminal forfeiture action.<p>The question addressed in the Supreme Court case was about <i>criminal</i>, not <i>civil</i> forfeiture.