Such things can be contested, if you can prove in a court of law that what has been siezed was not aquired criminally or used in criminal activities (aka "that pile of cash they found under my bed that my job wouldnt pay me in 50 years of continuous labour isnt drug profits but inheritance, here's the will and bank records" or "I have that fertilizer because I am a farmer not a bomber, here's my licence") the property will be returned, fines cancelled or repaid and such misuse leaves the counties open for damage claims.

But this is an issue of the original law and the subject of another thread, what does this extension account for? Would it really extend to siezing people's houses while they are away protesting?