<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>alistairSH</author><text>&lt;i&gt;The right of the people to be secure in their ... effects, against unreasonable ... seizures, shall not be violated&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;The building was part of the person&amp;#x27;s effects.  I don&amp;#x27;t understand how your argument is legal (not that I don&amp;#x27;t believe you - civil forfeiture has been going on long enough that I assume SCOTUS has heard a sampling of cases).&lt;p&gt;It beggars belief that this practice has stood for decades.</text><parent_chain><item><author>mysterydip</author><text>People have constitutional rights, objects do not</text></item><item><author>Buttons840</author><text>So the defense of violating people&amp;#x27;s right to be secure from seizurs is some mumbo jumbo about charging objects with a crime? How does charging anyone or anything relate to the 6th amendment?</text></item><item><author>arcticbull</author><text>The workaround under which civil asset forfeiture operates is that they&amp;#x27;re not charging the property owner - or the property holder - with anything. They&amp;#x27;re bringing a civil case against the property itself (jurisdiction &lt;i&gt;in rem&lt;/i&gt;). The property itself is the defendant. [1, 2]&lt;p&gt;Which leads to some pretty hilarious case titles:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;[edit] &amp;quot;South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;[edit] &amp;quot;United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;In my opinion this tactic should be illegal.&lt;p&gt;[edit] As far as I know this only really exists in the US, and in Canadian admiralty law (so, only in the US).&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;home.treasury.gov&amp;#x2F;policy-issues&amp;#x2F;terrorism-and-illicit-finance&amp;#x2F;asset-forfeiture&amp;#x2F;forfeiture-overview&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;home.treasury.gov&amp;#x2F;policy-issues&amp;#x2F;terrorism-and-illici...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;In_rem_jurisdiction&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;In_rem_jurisdiction&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>esics6A</author><text>Civil forfeiture is a direct and obvious violation of the US Constitution and shouldn&amp;#x27;t even exist under the USA legal system and is dangerous to the US legal system:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Article the sixth... 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.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Police under the US Constitution have to go before a judge and court and make an Oath under perjury of law describing the items to be seized. There has to be a justification and supported by affirmation meaning evidence and supporting facts. In the case of the building that was seized it was operating a perfectly legal business under state law. It had the necessary licenses and permits. There needs to be a direct challenge against this type of extra-judicial seizure in the US Supreme Court as it&amp;#x27;s a clear challenge to the entire operation of the rule of law and legal system.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Town Seized Building, Offered to Return It If Owners Bought Two Cars for Police</title><url>https://reason.com/2022/05/19/michigan-couple-says-town-seized-their-building-and-offered-to-return-it-if-they-bought-two-cars-for-police/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Buttons840</author><text>Seizing objects violates the owners rights, not the objects rights.&lt;p&gt;Another angle of defense might be to ask if it&amp;#x27;s even possible to violate the 6th amendment. What would violating the 6th amendment look like? I suspect the answer will closely resemble civil forfeitures.</text><parent_chain><item><author>mysterydip</author><text>People have constitutional rights, objects do not</text></item><item><author>Buttons840</author><text>So the defense of violating people&amp;#x27;s right to be secure from seizurs is some mumbo jumbo about charging objects with a crime? How does charging anyone or anything relate to the 6th amendment?</text></item><item><author>arcticbull</author><text>The workaround under which civil asset forfeiture operates is that they&amp;#x27;re not charging the property owner - or the property holder - with anything. They&amp;#x27;re bringing a civil case against the property itself (jurisdiction &lt;i&gt;in rem&lt;/i&gt;). The property itself is the defendant. [1, 2]&lt;p&gt;Which leads to some pretty hilarious case titles:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;[edit] &amp;quot;South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;[edit] &amp;quot;United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;In my opinion this tactic should be illegal.&lt;p&gt;[edit] As far as I know this only really exists in the US, and in Canadian admiralty law (so, only in the US).&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;home.treasury.gov&amp;#x2F;policy-issues&amp;#x2F;terrorism-and-illicit-finance&amp;#x2F;asset-forfeiture&amp;#x2F;forfeiture-overview&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;home.treasury.gov&amp;#x2F;policy-issues&amp;#x2F;terrorism-and-illici...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;In_rem_jurisdiction&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;In_rem_jurisdiction&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>esics6A</author><text>Civil forfeiture is a direct and obvious violation of the US Constitution and shouldn&amp;#x27;t even exist under the USA legal system and is dangerous to the US legal system:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Article the sixth... 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.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Police under the US Constitution have to go before a judge and court and make an Oath under perjury of law describing the items to be seized. There has to be a justification and supported by affirmation meaning evidence and supporting facts. In the case of the building that was seized it was operating a perfectly legal business under state law. It had the necessary licenses and permits. There needs to be a direct challenge against this type of extra-judicial seizure in the US Supreme Court as it&amp;#x27;s a clear challenge to the entire operation of the rule of law and legal system.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Town Seized Building, Offered to Return It If Owners Bought Two Cars for Police</title><url>https://reason.com/2022/05/19/michigan-couple-says-town-seized-their-building-and-offered-to-return-it-if-they-bought-two-cars-for-police/</url></story>