Yes, that is precisely what I'm saying.
"The City of Miami enacted an ordinance which allows the police to seize and impound any motor vehicle that the police have PROBABLE CAUSE to believe has been used to facilitate crimes that were a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the City."
"The Third Circuit Court of Appeal on Wednesday upheld a lower court's ruling that a 1997 Miami ordinance allowing police officers to confiscate vehicles of drivers committing crimes -- particularly buying drugs or soliciting prostitutes -- is invalid."
But why did they rule that way?
"Circuit Court Judge Celeste Muir ruled in 2001 that the city could not impound a vehicle unless the driver is the sole owner."
Not because of lack of due process. SCOTUS has ruled asset forfeiture on probable cause alone to be sufficient, in direct difiance of the 5th Amendment. That's why, in innumerable cases, if you're pulled over and have any significant amount of cash on you, the police can simply take it, even if they have no evidence of a crime, even if you are never charged, and even if you are charged and acquitted they don't have to give it back.
I know you already knew this, so why do you even ask?
The court simply ruled that the police could not seize an asset that didn't belong to the suspect. Geez, this isn't rocket science.
The asset forfeiture laws were changed. Get up to speed.