Heck, I am all for it if serious criminals are the only ones affected by such laws. And it is limited to SERIOUS crimes. There has to be strict limits in place for when confiscation of anyone's property is justified, and even then, it really must be confined by the limitations imposed by constitutional protections of the individual.
Yeah, it sounds silly to think someone could have their vehicle impounded for running a stop sign, but can you really say that it is impossible for that to happen via some change in the law sometime in the future? I am sure some slick attorney (now a law maker) can make a case for such an action endangering people and therefore be akin to conspiring to commit manslaughter. Laws can be twisted and modified as necessary to bring them way out of the intent and scope of such laws as originally intended.
For instance:
It is a felony if you steal more than $300 worth of oranges from a grove.
If you steal ANY property valued at more than $750, that is a felony. With inflation like it is, soon that will cover a LOT of ground.
Stealing a fire extinguisher of any value is a felony.
Trespassing on a construction site is a felony.
Trespassing on commercial horticulture property is a felony.
Stealing a stop sign is a felony.
Stealing a firearm is a felony.
Stealing anything valued at $300 or more from someone 65 years old or older is a felony.
How many of those above are actually serious crimes of violence?
So if such felonies could potentially result in civil forfeiture of any associated property, either now or in the future, sure, why couldn't failure to stop at a stop sign join that list?
Once you are on that slippery slope, it can be damned difficult to get off of it sometimes.
__________________
|