That's still civil forfeiture, just an alteration for the rules in which it is allowed and how it must be carried out. Which is fine, and actually supports my position, which is that a critical look needs to be taken before we decide to just abolish it completely.

Really, I just think acting like there will be no negative consequences of abolishing it, or that the negative consequences will be easily outweighed by the positives, without bothering to actually bothering to look at the pros and cons is an unsupportable position.