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

lubbockonline.com ^ | 11.20.03 | P. CHRISTINE SMITH

[tacticalogic]

Maybe to clarify, they should have said, "... after an investigation into the cultivation of marijuana plants on about 10 acres of a 320 acre cornfield".

Maybe. Then again if was 10 acres of marijuana, then it would have been a "10 acre marijuana field". On a 320 acre farm, what is it that makes a particular 10 acres a "corn field"?

[skinkinthegrass]

Can we as conservatives at least join together and agree that it's complete and utter crap for the state to be able to seize property of people merely accused of a crime?

Yes, We can.

Rem: The Scott incident in Kali., Where the EO, shot and killed, Mr. Scott, in a "No-Knot" drug Raid. During the wrongful death civil suit, it appears the drug raid was a ruse/gambit, the civil government really wanted his land for a park...the widow won the suit, loss the the farm, due to legal costs/bills and taxes.

[ellery]

He was cleared of all criminal charges against him. There are no outstanding charges (see the last sentence of the article). The government continues to lay claim to his property. Is this consistent with the fourth amendment, which is incorporated by all states including Texas?

[robertpaulsen]

"He was cleared of all criminal charges against him. There are no outstanding charges (see the last sentence of the article).

He was cleared of all charges? ellery, I thought you were above this kind of thing.

Nowhere does it say he was cleared of all charges. Nowhere. Why did you state that as fact?

He was recently cleared of the charge of possession of marijuana, yes. There are no outstanding charges, yes.

But the article states, "In a June 2002 forfeiture hearing in Parmer County, Ronnie Puckett lost his 320-acre farm to the state." That was over a year ago. I would assume it was due to some different charge filed against him or his property by the state. That's over and done with, and they're going back and forth with appeals.

[ellery]

He was recently cleared of the charge of possession of marijuana, yes. There are no outstanding charges, yes. But the article states, "In a June 2002 forfeiture hearing in Parmer County, Ronnie Puckett lost his 320-acre farm to the state." That was over a year ago. I would assume it was due to some different charge filed against him or his property by the state. That's over and done with, and they're going back and forth with appeals.

What? Either there are outstanding charges against him or there aren't. The article states that there aren't. You admit that there aren't. So what "different" charge do you "assume" is still pending on appeal? This whole article is about the fact that the loss of his farm was the result of the drug charge, he was cleared of the drug charge, but his farm ownership has not been restored. The only thing that is being appealed, according to this article, is the loss of his farm. That loss was a direct result of the drug charge that he has been cleared of. Going back to your original analogy, it's as if someone in prison has been found not guilty on what he was charged for, but now has to appeal his or her release separately.

[tacticalogic]

I would assume it was due to some different charge filed against him or his property by the state.

Any reason to consider that assumption to be any better than the "you can't grow corn and pot in the same field" assumption?

[robertpaulsen]

Spoken like a lawyer ... and don't be too quick to take that as a compliment.

You are correct. It was 250 pounds total. The "ten acres" is unclear, but I'll accept your interpretation. Fine.

So now that we have the semantics clarified, what's changed? I mean, what's your point?

Are you saying that because it might be 150 pounds not 250 pounds as reported in some article he should skate? Are you saying that marijuana wasn't planted in a (on a ) corn field (corn patch, pice of dirt)?

[robertpaulsen]

"That loss was a direct result of the drug charge that he has been cleared of."

Oh baloney. He lost the farm before his possession case was even heard. That's what makes me think there was a separate charge last year.

The only reason it's in dispute is because of a technicality: "... won back control of the property because the state did not make a proper filing for seizure." It didn't say he won back control because he was found not guilty of possession of marijuana.

According to the article, "At the state’s request, the state Supreme Court has agreed to hear the property forfeiture case." Now why would the Supreme Court even hear this case now that he's been cleared of the possession charge?

[TKDietz]

All I was saying is that it is unfair to say with such authority that this guy knew there was pot growing on his land. You tried to spin the article to make it sound like the guy had some massive marijuana plantation growing so he must have known it was there. If he had 250 pounds in his barn and a 10 acre patch growing, it would be much less believable that he didn't know it was there. That just isn't what the article said.

Seems like your the one twisting the facts like a lawyer to suit your purposes.

[TKDietz]

I'm not sure about Texas law, but in most states, I believe, they can do the forfieture whether they charge the person with a crime or not and even if one is found not guilty of a crime they can still go on with the civil forfeiture.

Civil forfeiture is a civil action, it's not a criminal law case. If I recall correctly, the property is actually named as a defendant. The state serves a summons and the person who is having his property forfeited has time to respond, just like in any other lawsuit. Instead of having the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the State need only prove that the property was somehow used to ingest, produce, process, buy or sell, conceal, transport, store drugs, or was bought with drug money or intended to be used for any of those purposes. The laws vary some from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but basically all the State has to do is prove that more likely than not the property was used or intended to be used for one of those purposes. It's a much easier burden to meet than the "beyond reasonable doubt" burden. In fact, in my state any money found close to the drugs, or where drugs were being produced, stored, delivered and so on is presumed to be drug money subject to forfeiture.

So if a guy just cashed his paycheck and the police find drugs in his car that belong to one of his passengers, the police can seize his money and after proving that drugs were found, the State has met their burden and this guy will have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the money in his pocket was not profits from drugs or intended to be used for purchasing drugs. That may seem simple, but it's not because often these people aren't believed. They rarely have lawyers because at least where I live public defenders are not allowed to be involved in forfeiture cases because they are civil cases, not criminal. So, these guys don’t know how to subpoena witnesses, cross examine the police, and do the other things necessary to prove their case. Most don’t even know that they have to respond within twenty days of being served the summons, or they don’t know how, so the state ends up getting a default judgment when the defendants fail to respond.

[pageonetoo]

"But, given the scenario of finding one marijuana plant on your property, you think it would get that far? Then again, with you ... probably."

I do not own a single tract of 300+ acres, but where I live, there is corn grown all over...in the mountains of WV... and it would be extrememly easy to hide 10 acres of whatever crop you wanted...

I actually own 140 acres on one tract, in NM, but it is wide open and arid, not the best place to grow anything, except dust bunnies...

And my sweeping generalization about your probable status was in response to YOUR sweeping generalizations and assumptions.

With me, they would not get the chance of catching me doing something so stupid, as to grow hemp (indeed, you and your JBT friends can get the dogs and check out any of my property, cars, motor homes, boats, or houses... there is nothing to find!)...

and the fact that you seem to like to take things into your own hands (referring to what you insinuate would happen ...if someone tried something on YOUR property!) shows that you actually hold the law in low regard, in contrast to your standards for others.

Unfortunately, we do not get a chance to make laws, only to be held to them and/or flaunt them... even when we feel they are wrong. But, to be castigated and referred to contemptuously, for holding a contrary view, does litle to further your apparent wish to subdidize and support this WOD.

Why can't you admit that there are things wrong with the WOD, and with what is happening to our citizenry? Or, do you accept the premise that g'umt makes no mistakes... and certainly ALWAYS does things IN OUR BEST INTEREST?

I believe that an adult is capable of choosing his own poison, and I do infer that Hemp is one of them! I like a good red wine, and have never acquired a taste for beer. A good margarita is a wonderful thing to imbibe, and SOMETIMES I EVEN DRINK TWO. If I were to drive in most states, now, I could be convicted of DUI. And with the laws of confiscation, they could take away my car... even though they find me not guilty of the DUI (I know there are some good lawyers)...

In NY, they have laws against the use of tobacco in bars and restaurants, regardless of the owners, OR PATRONS, wishes. They are doing it because it 'MAY' harm someone through the second-hand theory (which now appears to be as untrue as the one about freon! Of course, E I DuPont may have had something to do with that one, since their old patents were expiring). And the result is THOUSANDS of businesses losing $$$MILLIONS in income, many being forced to close, and their employees are without jobs... really helped them, didn't they?

Yes, I have smoked bails of hemp, probably... and still managed to accumulate a net worth which many would envy (I am not bragging, only refuting your constant barrage of unfounded, and unwarranted allegations concerning hemp users). I own real estate in 4 states, have 13 vehicles in my yard (all, except two parts cars, running, tagged, insured, and/or track qualified. Most of it was accumulated WHILE being a hemp smoker.

I also managed to raise 4 children, and have one 14 yr old now... One of the grown ones is a JBT! One is a school teacher, and the other two are mommies with home-based careers. They all know/knew of my usage of that 'vile' (IYO) devil weed.

I have a clear driving record, and have driven an average of more than 50 THOUSAND miles a year. AT times, I admit, I was under the influence of THC (not as a rule), but never out of control. Indeed, with all the driving I do, my reflexes have saved me many times (even while 'stoned')...

My wife adores me, and my friends love me, so why should I listen to your whines, when most of the time you add nothing more than OPINION, and certainly only can refer to g'umt materials to bolster any supposed arguments you do posit (and the g'umt is the best source of truth?)?

If we are truly conservative, we could care less what another man/woman does on his/her own property, as long as it does not DIRECTLY affect us... I know that is a libertarian view, but then isn't conservatism about LIBERTY? (and no, I am not a Libertarian. I have been a dues paying member of the RNC, until this year (when the g'umt became bigger, and more expensive than EVER!!!)

I will certainly quit referencing or responding to you, unless you care to discuss these issues, with thought, not vitriol!

[ellery]

Yes, rp, he did lose the farm before the possession charge was even heard. Several statistics on this very thread indicate that many state forfeitures happen without charge. You, yourself, earlier on this thread, compared this to a situation where someone is held in jail before being charged.

This is the whole point. You can think there other outstanding charges, contrary to what this article explicitly states, all you like. However, if you dispute the facts in this article, please provide evidence for your claim -- speculation isn't going to cut it. Facts are stubborn things.

[clamper1797]

If you own any sizable amount of acreage on Loma Prieta or near Nicene or up Trout Gulch Road in Aptos ... it's a fair bet your land could be and may be used to grow pot. Just a fact of life in Santa Cruz county

[clamper1797]

Farmers know what is on each and every square inch of that land because they plant it and harvest it.

NOPE ... not all. It is VERY common practise for pot growers to use hard to access area's of land owners property to grow 5-10 plants. The apple growers and vinyards in Watsonville have complained to the authorities for years about MJ growers on their properties

[EggsAckley]

You just about nailed my location. And yes, there are too many steep canyons and hillsides to keep an eye on the total acreage constantly.

[coloradan]

Now why would the Supreme Court even hear this case now that he's been cleared of the possession charge?

Because maybe, just maybe, someone somewhere in the "justice" system thinks that it might violate something, somewhere, for the state to continue to retain his property after he has been cleared of criminal charges?

For all you know, the court might be arranging to rule that a criminal conviction is necessary for the state to retain forfeited property, and that absent that, unconstitutional property deprivation would occur.

Hypothetically. You ask the question as if there is no such possibility.

[Publius6961]

Term limits for bureaucrats.
I'm serious.

[clamper1797]

I used to live on Rio Del Mar Beach ... actually my condo was the highest corner condo overlooking the Cement Boat ( The Palo Alto) ... have you ever been to the Aptos Club ... or the Med ... or the Windjammer ... I was head of the Santa Cruz / Aptos clampers in 2000 .... We won first prize in the 4th of July Aptos "worlds shortest parade" (per Guiness) that year. My lady lived up Trout Gulch for years ... her landlord found many pots plants on his 200 acre property through the years

[robertpaulsen]

"You can think there other outstanding charges, contrary to what this article explicitly states, all you like.

Fine. The Texas Supreme Court has agreed to hear an asset forfeiture case where all charges in the case have been dropped against the owner.

And that makes perfect sense to you.

[coloradan]

This must have resulted from some other charge that they haven't told us about.

Sure it does. (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.)

Sorry, robertpaulsen, but you yourself stated that criminal charges are not necessary for forfeiture proceedings to occur. In your condescending post #130 you cite the law that states: "Currently, when a property owner goes to Federal court to challenge a seizure of property, all the Government needs to do is make an initial showing of probable cause that the property is subject to civil forfeiture. The owner then must establish that the property is innocent." .

If TX state forfeiture laws are similar to federal laws, then it's the same deal here.

Hence, if that is true, according to your own post there is no need for criminal charges, nor for a conviction. Instead, the burden is on the citizen to prove that the property is innocent - and you admit that you have no idea how this might even be accomplished.