There's "Against The Law", and there's "against the law". the latter usually has to be proven in court using a pile of case history and existing laws, which is difficult when the assets seized are from the lower rungs of society, who have no means to retain an attorney, who definitely don't see the benefit of continuing the case once the state settles and they get their stuff back, and who have the cards stacked against them (not sure if it's the same now, but states used to charge you state legal fees if you lost your case.)
US constitution is 100% explicit, it's forbidden 100% forbidden.
Conformance to this is completely dependent on nothing more than judges' ability to read. If they read the US constitution, it says:
> "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."
It'd be helpful to read up on constitutional law before drawing these conclusions because there is a long and complicated history around interpreting every phrase and most words in the part that you cite. Probable cause is a great place to start IMO.
Because the cases people talk about are about the police confiscating the first thing they stumble upon, and deciding on the spot to confiscate it with no cause other than "they feel like doing it"
Explicit is always better than implicit.