they don't need to be...it doesn't make sense to. Whatever judge listen to anyone arguing their side to somehow argue that this was the case should be removed from the bench.
I firmly believe in intent of the law. Children rationalize all sorts of insane BS that adults should pick up on and correct them that that's not what you meant. I feel like I'm okay to say this, because I have 3 kids, the oldest is 6. I've told my kids to go to bed and stay in your room. My 4 year old tests interpretation versus intent....all the time.
Said: Go to your bed and stay in your room, it's bed time.
Intent of the words: It's time to go to bed. Get into your bed, put your head on your pillow, laying down, put your covers over your body so as to stay warm, relax so as to facilitate a natural and relaxed position suitable for falling asleep while being secure within the bed.
Heard: ...be in the room...but fall asleep in the doorway. Technically not outside of the room.
The INTENT of the law should be more important than the language used.
Just because the language can be argued to show another side, doesn't make your side right. I just have re-word the said because 'you' want to be a difficult idiot who wants to have a say when your position is wrong.
going back to the intent. It doesn't matter what overpriced POS lawyers somehow managed to use clumsily fabricated language. It's wrong. The intent is that the 4th amendment was written to keep the gov't's grubby hands off of your stuff. They knew people get greedy and knew that grubby, greedy, rich people will rail poor people.
the right of the people to be secure in your possessions
things that are yours, should be yours and free from governmental influences that relive you of ownership without a damn good reason. It doesnt say things you currently possess because that would mean you always need to be close by. It says in your possessions (and persons). The intent was to say that no one from a governmental agency should have the power to relieve you of your possessions (at any time) without a reasonable cause.
Tying this back to the article OP posted, I don't think $16,000 in cash or anything else is unreasonable...especially if there was no other reason. It's especially egregious because the money confiscated were notes issued by the us treasury. It's government issued cash, the most purest form of the dollar we posses in the US and it was confiscated, with a reason...but a unreasonable one. Which, in my reddit user and no law degree opinion, is a pretty clear violation of the 4th amendment, regardless of whatever law was made under it. And hierarchy is important. The 4th amendment specifically covers this and any law which trumps the amendment and it's language of "shall not be violated" is a foul on the officer, county, district, state and nation. Even the law which they used was taken out of context and used inappropriately and outside of the intent of the law that was written to operate outside of the amendment.