One thing I never understood -- and these articles don't appear to cover, is how laws enabling civil forfeiture were never struck down as unconstitutional in the first place. Isn't this an obvious disregard for the fourth amendment?
But civil forfeiture is definitely constitutional as long as you get due process. The NYTimes is wrong in stating you have the burden of proof in these cases, the government does. It's just not as high as a criminal case. The civil burden is the same that govern all sorts of property issues.