Yes, but the 14th amendment says "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." You'd think that this would mean that if the government wants to take your property, they have to afford you due process. Instead, they dredge up an obscure concept called in rem jurisdiction from admiralty law. This was originally used in situations where a foreign ship came into port with contraband, and the owner was difficult to determine or couldn't be reached, so they came up with the idea of suing the property instead of the person. Then it was used in non-maritime cases where the owner of the property was unknown or dead. Then they managed to argue that since property isn't a person, it has no constitutional rights -- you're not depriving a person of his property without due process, you're just depriving the property of its liberty. It's unbelievable to me that such an obviously bullshit argument can get past the supreme court.