Depriving a person of access to his or her property without charging the person with a crime is a violation of due process. I shouldn't need to file a claim for the return of my property if I haven't been accused of wrongdoing. I also disagree with your argument that "property owners" (not "defedants" since the property is accused of the crime, not the person) simply need to file timely claims because hiring a lawyer to file a claim costs money that the property owner may not be able to afford if they have few assets and the seized property is something like an automobile, the loss of which causes them to also lose their job. The constitution exists to protect citizens from this sort of thing.
I don't understand how you can claim a lack of due process. The deprived is explicitly granted multiple hearings in court by a criminal judge. They in fact get more due process than a simple criminal defendant, because if they win any one of those hearings, they get their stuff back.
The rest of your comment, whatever. You're missing my point. I'm not taking on civil asset forfeiture, just sloppy reporting.
I think he's referring reasonably and ethically due in due process. These things start to sound like cliches, but both words are important here. Just because the corruption is legal doesn't make it ethical, or due.
