Farmer found innocent of drug charge, now battles to save land

lubbockonline.com ^ | 11.20.03 | P. CHRISTINE SMITH

[freepatriot32]

FARWELL – After more than a two-year ordeal, a Parmer County jury Thursday found Ronnie Puckett, 47, innocent of possession of marijuana, a charge that came after police found an estimated 250 pounds of the drug on his Lazbuddie farm in October 2001.

His fight continues, however, to keep the state from seizing his land.

Puckett was arrested on June 14, 2002, after an investigation into the cultivation of marijuana plants on about 10 acres of cornfield. Police also seized marijuana from a barn on the property.

Puckett’s then-74-year-old father, William Vernon Puckett, was arrested during a raid on the property on Oct. 18, 2001. He later entered a plea agreement and was sentenced to a 10-year probated sentence and a $5,000 fine.

During the three-day trial this week, the elder Puckett testified that his son had no knowledge of the marijuana-growing operation, said Dan Hurley, Ronnie Puckett’s attorney.

At the time, Ronnie Puckett was grieving the death of his wife and was not spending much time in his fields, Hurley said.

Two outstanding arrest warrants remain for individuals allegedly involved in the marijuana operation.

Johnny Actkinson, 287th District Attorney, confirmed that Bill Fancher and his son, Jesse Fancher, are wanted on marijuana possession charges.

Kathy Fancher, Bill Fancher’s wife, testified against Ronnie Puckett as part of an immunity deal.

In a June 2002 forfeiture hearing in Parmer County, Ronnie Puckett lost his 320-acre farm to the state. The property was valued at approximately $484,000. The state can move to seize property if it is used for illegal drug purposes, Hurley said.

Puckett, however, appealed the ruling to the Seventh District Court of Appeals in Amarillo and won back control of the property because the state did not make a proper filing for seizure, Hurley said.

At the state’s request, the state Supreme Court has agreed to hear the property forfeiture case, Hurley said.

Still, Hurley said, Ronnie Puckett looks forward to moving on with his life now that the threat of criminal prosecution is behind him.

‘‘He is incredibly relieved and happy,’’ Hurley said.

p.christine.smith@lubbockonline.com t 766-8754

[robertpaulsen]

"Yeah I though of you the other day Bob, I recall you saying what a good idea you thought it would be to turn your son over to the state, for his own good, if he was ever caught smoking pot."

Nah. That wasn't me.

But it sure sounds like something I would do, doesn't it?

[ellery]

RP, you're testing me to see if I read your posts, aren't you? :)

You are the person who explained the doctrine of incorporation to me -- from your post(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1015559/posts?page=31#31):

The basic liberties of the Bill of Rights did not become applicable to the states until after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Among other things, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited the states from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Through a tortuous, decades-long process, the Court eventually adopted the view that certain fundamental liberties in the Bill of Rights could be incorporated through the due process clause and turned into limits against the power of the states also.

In separate decisions, the right of free speech, the right to freely exercise one's religion, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and so on, were made applicable to the states by the Justices. The Second Amendment right to bear arms, however, has never been incorporated by the Court into the Fourteenth Amendment. The result is that today the Second Amendment, whatever it may mean, operates to restrict only the power of the federal government. The states remain unfettered by the Amendment's limitations. They remain essentially free to regulate arms and the right to bear them as they choose, in the absence of strictures in their own state constitutions and laws." -- time.com

In short, the fourth amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure, and fifth amendment due process requirements apply to the states as well as the feds. This is entirely consistent with amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Since sodomy (and drug law, for that matter) are not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, these issues should belong to the states. Although I agree that people should be able to engage in consensual sexual activity in the privacy of their own homes, I believe this should be decided by state legislatures rather than federal judicial fiat.

So, back to the question: do you consider it Constitutional for the government to hold property of someone who has been found not guilty in a court of law to all criminal charges against him?

[robertpaulsen]

"It sure would be a pity if someone were to plant a pot plant on your property,"

Ooh, it would be a pity, all right. Especially if I caught them.

"and then report it to the cops"

Report away. I know the sheriff, the sheriff knows me. My next door neighbor works auxilliary for the sheriff and we play cards together.

If they found a marijuana plant on my property, why, we'd all have a good laugh about it.

Now, ten acres of planted marijuana and 250 pounds in my barn might take some explaining.

[Kerberos]

But it sure sounds like something I would do, doesn't it?"

Yeah Bob it does, and I am very sure it was you who said it.

[robertpaulsen]

"do you consider it Constitutional for the government to hold property of someone who has been found not guilty in a court of law to all criminal charges against him?"

Sure. If I knowingly (I would deny this, obviously) rent a building to someone who is using it to manufacture meth, I would expect it to be seized, even though I wasn't involved in the drug making.

What? You disagree? I keep the building? Can I keep all the innocent looking chemicals, too? They're harmless (unless combined).

One guy sits in the getaway car. The cops arrest the bad guys in the bank. The driver of the car gets off?

A man is shot and killed by three guys. One bullet, one gun. Just one arrest? The other two go free?

How many examples do you want?

[ellery]

All of this is beside the point, because this man was found not guilty. It doesn't matter whether or not you think he was actually guilty -- the court system is what we have to decide these things, per the Constitution. I'm not discussing whether or not the jury made a mistake in finding him not guilty -- because I don't have enough information from this article to have an opinion. What I'm arguing is that once someone is found guilty in a court of law, they cannot be punished for that crime as if they were guilty. Are you arguing otherwise?

[ellery]

Correction: I meant to say once someone is found not guilty in a court of law, they cannot be punished as if they were guilty.

[verity]

get a bullet fired into the back of your head by your superiors

This happens every day of the week!

[Lurker]

Hey b***wipe:

He wasn't charged with 'growing' anything now was he.

I hope to God somebody plants a joint in your house someday and then rats your butt out to the cops.

Once again. He was found 'not guilty' of the charges, and yet you, good little Nazi that you are, want him to lose his land anyway.

F*** off.

L

[coloradan]

Report away. I know the sheriff, the sheriff knows me. My next door neighbor works auxilliary for the sheriff and we play cards together.

So, we are not a nation of laws but of men, and the fact that you know the sheriff puts you in a different light than someone who doesn't? My, what respect for the Rule Of Law you have there. Besides, you might not know the local DEA authority even if you do know the sheriff - and it might be his jurisdiction. (Then again, knowing you, you probably do know the local DEA authority - and it is about who you know and not what the laws say.)

If they found a marijuana plant on my property, why, we'd all have a good laugh about it.

It's nice that you would receive the courtesy, when others wouldn't.

[coloradan]

If I knowingly (I would deny this, obviously) rent a building to someone who is using it to manufacture meth, I would expect it to be seized, even though I wasn't involved in the drug making.

Conspiracy to manufacture meth. Crime. Accessory to said manufacture. Crime.

One guy sits in the getaway car. The cops arrest the bad guys in the bank. The driver of the car gets off?

Accessory to bank robbery, crime. Conspiracy to rob a bank. Crime. Failure to report a felony. Crime.

The man in this article has been found innocent of all criminal charges again him.

Shall the state continue to keep his property?

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[jmc813]

My next door neighbor works auxilliary for the sheriff and we play cards together.

You a poker player?

[ChemistCat]

I keep wondering what in the Constitution says that I can't grow and use a particular herb if I want to.

My doctor has told me that THC would be a better medication for my chronic pain, vision, and digestive problems than anything he can prescribe, but nobody can legally make me a safe, pure tablet I could take on his orders. It would be less addictive than the other crud I'm having to take. And if it would be more effective, then in my view the government is torturing me by forcing me to do without it. If it wouldn't be effective, well, it would sure have a lot of company in my medicine cabinet.

What gives the government the right to tell me doctor that he can't prescribe it, to tell me I can't take it, to tell me that I can't grow it and use it myself if that's what I want to do?

My next-door neighbor can go out and get drunk on ethanol, purely for recreational purposes, but for some reason THC is special and we need a totally unconstitutional War On Drugs to keep us from using it. Why? Cancer patients and people with glaucoma are known to benefit from it. People like me can only wonder. Why are we denied the right to try it? It might work, it might not. Hey, it might make us feel a little better, temporarily. WHy would that be so terrible it needs to be outlawed?

We already have perfectly good, semi-effective laws against driving under the influence, so don't tell me that's why.

I'm not saying it's a perfectly safe chemical--nothing is. You can kill yourself with water if you use it wrong. In fact, more people kill themselves with water than kill themselves with all other chemicals combined! I'm just wondering how we ended up with a government that can tell me what I can ingest and what I can grow. I can buy rat poison and kill myself with that if I want, but I can't buy THC because it might just possibly over the long term have some nebulous negative effects. I can be trusted with a firearm (so far!) and with narcotic pain relievers that knock me out, but I can't try a little pot. WHY?

It all makes no sense to me, and that they can confiscate everything and jail people who are peripherally involved with this particular activity is crazy. This is not a legitimate function of the federal government. It's a huge waste of taxpayer dollars, and wrecks many a productive life. I gather Willie Nelson has been doing weed for most of his adult life. Carl Sagan, too, was a pothead. I just don't see that it's any worse than ethanol and it might well be better. It should be legalized, because we're a free people and have the God-given right to make these decisions for ourselves.

I also don't see any evidence that most people are inhibited by laws against it. I am, but I resent it.

[templar]

Shall the state continue to keep his property?

Ever read any of these seizure cases? I don't know about all of them, but they sometimes are headed something like "State of Transmania vs. $50,000 cash & 1999 Mercedes 500D" or something similar. Seems that the seizures are brought against the property in question, not it's owner. The property is the guilty party, the owner doesn't count. This may be the norm, or it may just be the way some States do it, I'm not sure.

[muggs]

Bump, because I agree with everything you said.

[Gianni]

you don't find 250 pounds of weed in a glovebox or old cigar box...

You know, I thought this also. I've seen a pound of grass before, and can't understand the reports of large amounts being transported. Seems to me that it would be about the same weight/volume as hay bales or something like that.

Then I read the article a few days ago about a guy in an F150 here in Iowa that got busted with 1300 pounds. To me, that sounds like a semi-load, but somehow this guy had it stashed in an F150???

So now someone with 1/5th that amount can't find a good hiding place in a barn? Come on, I know guys who'd never know if I hid my F150 in their barn!

[berkeleybeej]

FWIW - When I lived in Berkeley I owned a house with a rented in-law unit. Normal size parcel - small backyard, neighbors 10 feet away on either side. My tenants started growing marijuana plants on their balcony. I didn't notice...on my own property...because I was in a depressed frame of mind, I didn't even go out in my backyard for many months. Found out about it when the cops showed up. They had a hard time believing I didn't know about it.

Should I have had my house taken away?

[pageonetoo]

After more than a two-year ordeal, a Parmer County jury Thursday found Ronnie Puckett, 47, innocent... except byRobert Paulsen, who went on to say that at the least the guy should lose his farm, and that he should be locked up, and the key thrown away... Of course, RP was not on the jury, or even aware of the court case, until someone posted a news item on the Conservative FReeRepublic web site...but was instead was sitting at his computer, wasting his life trolling, like his friends CWO and Dane, et al...! The aforementioned persons are known to be against any form of freedom, liberty, or personal choice, instead, they promote a totalitarian state, with their opinions being made into law.

I have a suggestion on how to handle the nega-trolls that come into these threads with nothing to add...
IGNORE THEM! If you post to them, they will clog up the thread with meaningless BS, and no intelligent discussion, of the ISSUES, will never be read.

[pageonetoo]

IGNORE THEM! If you post to them, they will clog up the thread with meaningless BS, and no intelligent discussion, of the ISSUES, will never be read. ...


excuse me, typo... should read "will EVER be read." ...