Read <i>Boyd</i>, pages 623-24. It is talking precisely about the <i>United States v. $25,000</i> sort of cases, where property is seized because it is contraband or otherwise subject to forfeiture, not as punishment for a crime. The opinion refers to the &quot;first statute passed by Congress to regulate the collection of duties, the act of July 31, 1789, 1 Stat. 29, 43&quot; which deals with seizure of imported contraband without charging anyone of a crime.<p><i>Boyd</i> distinguishes those justified seizures from the seizures of documents at issue in the case on the basis that &quot;[in] the one case, the government is entitled to the possession of the property; in the other it is not.&quot; One cannot have a legitimate property right in contraband or the fruits of illegal activity, so seizure thereof does not violate due process.<p>The problem with modern asset forfeiture (which I think is constitutional, but still a <i>bad idea</i>), is not due process, but probability. Finding untaxed sugar on a ship carries high indicia of reliability as to the conclusion it is contraband subject to forfeiture. That&#x27;s less true for $25,000 found in someone&#x27;s car trunk (though statistically, that&#x27;s highly likely to be fruits of illegal activity as well).