Thank you for bringing this to public attention. It is very similar to the question that came before the Supreme Court in Timbs v. Indiana in which they determined that violations of the fourth, fifth, and eighth amendments had occurred. Timb's constitutional right to due process and protection from excessive fines had been violated by the abusive practice of civil asset forfeiture, sometimes called "policing for profit". When personal assets are seized, the burden of proof shifts from the accuser (law enforcement agency) to the accused (citizen). I sincerely hope that SCOTUS will rectify their previous decision in the OSHA matter. The high court is fallible and only they can correct the errors they make.
Thank you for bringing this to public attention. It is very similar to the question that came before the Supreme Court in Timbs v. Indiana in which they determined that violations of the fourth, fifth, and eighth amendments had occurred. Timb's constitutional right to due process and protection from excessive fines had been violated by the abusive practice of civil asset forfeiture, sometimes called "policing for profit". When personal assets are seized, the burden of proof shifts from the accuser (law enforcement agency) to the accused (citizen). I sincerely hope that SCOTUS will rectify their previous decision in the OSHA matter. The high court is fallible and only they can correct the errors they make.