The argument being made is that the structure of the government in the USA defines persons and effects as both being part of the 4A with the same standard of pr

The argument being made is that the structure of the government in the USA defines persons and effects as both being part of the 4A with the same standard of protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The language of the clause means you can't disconnect persons, houses, papers, and effects. People are secure in their persons, their houses, their effects. It's not a weird quirk of some conflicting criminal/civil law. It's part of the document that binds all other laws. Making people a third party to their effects means you could also do that to their person, which is complete nonsense. > Civil asset forfeiture does not require any crime But it certainly does require suspicion of wrongdoing. You can't just walk up and take something from someone just because you don't charge them.