it's almost as if the original american political ideals are corrupt enough to afford chattel property rights over human beings and aren't actually built on ethical grounds

I think "it's almost as if" is an unduly passive-aggressive way to begin a comment, but I agree that the thought you are expressing warrants discussion in this thread.

You do get due process. If the police take your property, you file a notice with them that it is your property. They either give it back or file a civil suit against the property. That civil suit will have a trial, which is the due process.

I think the issue mark-r was talking about is that the property is seized before any sort of due process has concluded. Also, if the government doesn't bring a case against you you have to actively fight to get your property back. So if your car is seized and neither party takes any further action the default behavior is the government now owns your car. [someone correct me if I'm wrong about this]

You are arrested and placed in a cage before any sort of due process has concluded.

The due process doesn't have to be first, it just has to happen, and it has to be binding. (i.e. they can't just keep you or your property if they lose the trial)

> You are arrested and placed in a cage before any sort of due process has concluded.

Well, that's not really supposed to happen either.

Of course it is. The Bill of Rights contemplates bail, so obviously it wasn't considered a violation of due process to hold someone before trial.

I'm sorry, I was unclear. I meant to suggest that the right to be free from excessive bail has been eroded as well.

My guess w/r/t constitutionality would be that many seizures are executed in connection with drug prosecutions in which such rights are abridged. It's arguable this is also constitutionally suspect.