The latest tactic we're seeing up here is an attack in the forfeiture hearing upon the validity of the warrant. That generally takes the form of attacking supposed inconsistencies between the affidavit in support of the search warrant and the officer's recollection at the time of grilling by the claimant's lawyer.

Although, in a world of ideal legal interpretation, your supposition about the finality of the magistrate's determination would hold sway, our judges have shown a willingness to allow claimants' lawyers to try and convince them that second guessing about probable cause is appropriate. Such trepidity is said to rest on the offhand remark in Hardy that no attack on the validity of the underlying warrant had been raised.

Don't the judges see that the attack on validity surmised in Hardy is not as to the good faith probable cause but regarding some technical violation of the statutroy requirements of warrants?

Maybe the three of us need to get into this lucrative, governor-endorsed business...