SidneyBaumgarten

Yes. The judges should require more than an affidavit from a police officer except in very compelling cases.

Simple: The statute meets constitutional standards by giving the defendant a hearing within 72 hours. Moreover, it is not a permanent seizure or confiscation of property until a full plenary hearing is held. No conflict with the Supreme Court.

It is important to remember that the law was primarily focused on the illegal activities in midtown, mostly prostitution, human trafficking, pornography, etc. Using it for Liquor violations is especially troubling because the State Liquor Authority has its own enforcement mechanisms.

First, the law has been upheld many times in the courts, including the federal courts and its provisions pass "due process" muster. During my tenure--in the early days of the midtown enforcement efforts---we were not focusing much on drug enforcement. That being said, the NAL's use for that purpose is not necessarily wrong. I do believe it remains a question of proper underlying reasons and illegality as defined in the statute.

No law can possibly foresee every single application or issue. it would become burdensome for the NYPD and for the courts.
What it needs is inculcating in those responsible for its enforcement a firm understanding of due process and "clear and convincing" evidence. And perhaps the meaning of fairness.