The problem is the unsubstantiated claim that all of the items seized were ill-gotten, not even that "ill-gotten items must have been stolen". If all it takes

The problem is the unsubstantiated claim that all of the items seized were ill-gotten, not even that "ill-gotten items must have been stolen". If all it takes is one bad apple with a safe-deposit box to taint all of the boxes, regardless of owner, this is by definition guilt by (loose) association. I have zero problem with FBI, or whatever police, seizing a specific deposit box for which they have a valid warrant. But, I have tons of problems with this. It's a huge unwarranted governmental overreach, depriving people of their property without due process. That "they" have done a procedural end around by calling it "civil" instead of "criminal" and somehow gotten the courts to go along with it so far is abhorrent. The 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." No where does the 4th amendment proscribe an exemption for civil asset forfeiture. CAF may be a complex mechanism, but the prohibition of such acts is not. It's almost like the foundering fathers saw this behavior from a different tyrannical government before...