For a layperson like me, can you help me understand how it is that a case can be filed against property with respect to civil forfeiture while ignoring the constitutional violations against the person? I mean, how can anyone with a straight face claim that seizing property does not have burdensome negative consequences directly against the property owner, a real person who does have constitutional protections? How is it that the law in practice can become so far away removed from what seems so obviously wrong to those of us not familiar?

I trust you that there probably are many court decisions that have found civil forfeiture not to be unconstitutional. But it feels like it comes down to some pedantic twisting of words which go against the spirit of the constitution.