But their wording is quite wrong, "The police cannot grab people’s property and confiscate it on a whim." The police can and do grab people's property and confi

But their wording is quite wrong, "The police cannot grab people’s property and confiscate it on a whim." The police can and do grab people's property and confiscate it on a whim. Well, I suppose it's not on a whim since there's a purpose behind it. If the ACLU wants to say the police should not be able to do it because of the fourth amendment, then I would agree. You cannot say something can't be done when it's currently being done as part of policy. Civil forfeiture doesn't have to be ruled legal. If it is the law it is legal until the law is struck down by the courts. But I understand your point the ACLU wouldn't want to admit to that, but that doesn't excuse obviously incorrect wording of their legal claims in this case.