As the article states they will be arguing against not receiving a timely hearing as required by the 14th amendment and while they could rule that the plaintiffs didn’t receive that it remains to be see if they go further and address the forfeiture aspect of the case…time will tell.

McGuire Woods was the law firm we used on the rare occasion we needed legal advice. Good people.

State seizures have been analyzed under the fourth amendment since Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
I do not see any reference to the level of government, federal, state, or other, in the Fourth Amendment

That's because the entire document lays out the rules for the federal government. From the Preamble:

quote:

ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That's it. It's laying out the Federal goverment - what things the Feds must do, are allowed to do, must not do. There are a few specific entries about what states must do (participate in Federal elections, e.g.) and can't do (make treaties, etc.) but it's a Federal document, not a state document. Where no level of government is mentioned, the references are to the Feds.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:

quote:

ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Could that be construed as applying to each of the United States?

I just don't understand how the Second Amendment is interpreted as being applicable on the state and local level, if the Fourth is restricted to the federal level. The logic of that eludes me. Maybe I'm just being dense on that point, but I don't understand the difference.

I texted my son, who is a lawyer (prosecutor) asking him whether the Fourth is applicable only on the federal level, and his response was "It is binding on all the states as well." That might just be his opinion, but he's a lawyer, so I think that his opinion on this matter is probably more accurate than mine.