> Yeah, but he has a history of dumb contrarian lone dissents that throw some poor citizen under the bus.

That's because he interprets the Constitution and the law according to what he believes them to mean, not according to what he wishes they would mean.

In this case, he clearly states that he sees no constitutional requirement for the State to return property after it has been confiscated post-conviction (as an aside, the article title is misleading: this wasn't confiscation prior to or absent a conviction). The Constitution does not mandate all good things, nor does it forbid all bad things.