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

lubbockonline.com ^ | 11.20.03 | P. CHRISTINE SMITH

[TKDietz]

Come on, how could property be guilty of anything. It's inanimate. It cannot form the necessary intent to commit a crime.

What you have going on in these suits is the court exercising property over a thing rather than just a person. The court has "in rem" jurisdiction. Courts exercise a sort of in rem jurisdiction over marriages as well. That's why one spouse can divorce another in a state where the other has never been. The court has jurisdiction over the marriage wherever either party resides. Often, in rem jurisdiction will be exercised over a piece of property in a jurisdiction that might not necessarily have personal jurisdiction over the person who owns the property.

I'm starting to go beyond what I know about these cases, so I'll try to cut this short. I'm not really sure why prosecutors use in rem jurisdiction and sue the property, perhaps it has something to do making it easier to deal with security interests, mortagages, co-owners and so on. I really don't know. But it has nothing to do with the property being guilty. The property doesn't make itself be used for illegal purposes.

[tacticalogic]

So in spite of the fact that it's the property that's charged, it's still the owner that's on trial, and subject to the penalties that will arising from a "guilty" verdict?

[ellery]

Thank you very much for the great information.

[coloradan]

Except that SCOTUS has already ruled that asset forfeiture plus a fine for a criminal conviction doesn't amount to double jeopardy, because asset forfeiture "isn't a punishment."

[TKDietz]

"So in spite of the fact that it's the property that's charged, it's still the owner that's on trial, and subject to the penalties that will arising from a "guilty" verdict?"

No, there is no guilty verdict. This is a civil action. The state just has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property was being used for or intended to be used for specific illegal purposes and if they present enough proof that is not sufficiently refuted by the owner, the court rules in favor of the State and the State is awarded the property. As for the owner, what they need to prove about him is either that he is the one that used the property or intended to use the property illegally or that he knew or should have known someone else was doing it.

Again, I'm not the best source for asset forfeiture info. I've pretty much told you all I know about it. I see these cases come along quite a bit but probably 95% of these people plead guilty to a crime and 99% of those who plead sign a consent order in the process turning their property over to the state. These cases are rarely ever brought to trial and at least where I live, the prosecutors never seize real property because it's too much of a pain for them to do all of the title searches, auction it off and pay off the mortgage holders and so on. They seize vehicles, cash, guns and other personal property all the time though.

[TKDietz]

That's one of them there legal fictions. It sure looks like a punishment to me. If it walks like a duck...

[tacticalogic]

Except that SCOTUS has already ruled that asset forfeiture plus a fine for a criminal conviction doesn't amount to double jeopardy, because asset forfeiture "isn't a punishment."

Ah! Creative semantics. I'm beginning to see the liberal's fascination with the concept.

[tacticalogic]

As for the owner, what they need to prove about him is either that he is the one that used the property or intended to use the property illegally or that he knew or should have known someone else was doing it.

Sure sounds like being on trial to me.

[TKDietz]

It does to me too.

[humblegunner]

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

Right.
And none of the land is left wild or too wooded or brushy or rocky to farm.
It's all a big park, aint it?

You need to watch less "Green Acres".

[TKDietz]

Here's an article and comments covering what we've been talking about here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1027596/posts

[robertpaulsen]

"FARWELL – After more than a two-year ordeal, a Parmer County jury Thursday found Ronnie Puckett, 47, innocent of possession of marijuana, a charge ..."

The raid on Ronnie Puckett's farm was October 18, 2001. His father was immediately arrested and later entered into a plea agreement.

Ronnie Puckett was arrested on June 14, 2002, so it hasn't been "more than a two-year ordeal". Why did they wait 8 months to arrest the owner of the farm where all the pot was growing and stored? Was he on the run with Bill Fancher and his son, Jesse Fancher?

And they're wanted on "possession" charges? How can that be?

[robertpaulsen]

I think you'll agree that the referenced article is a totally different situation that deals with drug paraphanalia, not drugs.

If it turns out that the drugs weren't drugs (or in the referenced article, that the drug paraphernalia weren't drug paraphernalia), then obviously there should be no forfeiture.

Under the current federal asset forfeiture law, the shop owner would be entitled to compensation for the broken and damaged merchandise.

But, here's yet another case where we're not talking about federal asset forfeiture, or federal jack-booted thugs running rampant over the citizens.

These are state asset forfeiture cases, just to make it perfectly clear to the 10th amendment, anti-government, state's rights cheerleaders.

[the ghost of things future]

What about the 5th amendment:

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Unless you want to define due process as the government doing it just because they feel like it.

[robertpaulsen]

"And none of the land is left wild or too wooded or brushy or rocky to farm. It's all a big park, aint it?"

You haven't read the posts of the people who live there, who are familiar with the area? Well, allow me to retort:

"You are exactly right. I am a farmer in the same area and you know what is growing on every square foot."
-- slag, post #51

"I've got a bridge for sale to anyone who believes he didn't know about 10 acres of weed in his field and more in his barn. He could look out his back door and see all of his little 320 acre farm and then some with nothing but a jack rabbit blocking the view. There's nothing for miles and miles and miles but flat land there."
-- mtbopfuyn, post #74

"Farwell, Texas is located on the High Plains of west Texas right on the border of Texas and east/central New Mexico. This particular area of Texas is "flatter" than a pool table and if one puts their nose on top of their dining room table and peers down to the other end, you will know the view these Farwell folks have of their countryside."
-- Muleteam 1, post #81

So yeah, it's all a big park.

[MrFreedom]

bump

[tacticalogic]

Why did they wait 8 months to arrest the owner of the farm where all the pot was growing and stored? Was he on the run with Bill Fancher and his son, Jesse Fancher? And they're wanted on "possession" charges? How can that be?

I don't know. Neither do you. What I do know is that the jury had a lot more information available to them about the specifics than anyone on this thread.

[robertpaulsen]

If someone obtains something illegally, it's not their "property" to begin with, is it?

Therefore, they're not being deprived of property. Or do you think they should be allowed to keep it?

[tacticalogic]

Is "asset forfeiture" limited to property that was "obtained illegally"?

[the ghost of things future]

We're not talking about anyone obtaining anything illegally. We're talking about confiscation of property simply because the government suspects someone of drug activity on that property. Certainly, you can't define that as constitutional with a straight face.