The loophole relied on is that you aren&#x27;t seizing &quot;their&quot;
 property, you&#x27;re seizing property of unknown ownership. The onus is on the purported owner to prove it belongs to them so they can have Constitutional rights in it.<p>See <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;In_rem_jurisdiction" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;In_rem_jurisdiction</a>, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...</a> and <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Asset_forfeiture#United_States" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Asset_forfeiture#United_States</a><p>Note that the government can admit the person used to own it. Under <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&#x2F;uscode&#x2F;text&#x2F;18&#x2F;981" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&#x2F;uscode&#x2F;text&#x2F;18&#x2F;981</a>, property used in certain crimes belongs to the government, and so the government takes it. It&#x27;s then the person&#x27;s job to prove it was not involved in a crime. Courts have ruled this doesn&#x27;t violate anyone&#x27;s rights.<p>(I probably have some of this wrong, IANAL, but I gave sources so you can look those up.)