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

lubbockonline.com ^ | 11.20.03 | P. CHRISTINE SMITH

[pageonetoo]

"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..."

So now you own a bridge? Where's the bridge, and how much do you want for it?

If there were 100 acres of corn, surrounding 10 acres of cultivated "whatever", it may not be visible, except by air. A barn is used to keep things inside, and you do not see them, unless you go inside. At least that is what a JURY apparently concluded.

You state no facts, just straw-man arguments, opinions and suppositions, to maintain your points.

[robertpaulsen]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were talking in generalities about the 5th amendment, quoting a section of it and all.

If I would have known you were referring to this particular case regarding Texas asset forfeiture laws and how they are applied to property involving drugs, why I would have replied to that particular issue.

Oops. Look at the time. Gotta go.

[TKDietz]

"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?"

It's not that easy. People are still entitled to due process of law before you deprive them of their property. Determining whether it's their property or not is part of the due process requirement.

And there is absolutely no requirement that the property have been acquired through illegal means before it can be forfeited. The farm could have been in the family for generations. The property could have been purchased long before any illegal activity took place. Not only that, but the illegal activity could be one that's not designed to reap profits. Growing a single pot plant for personal would be enough for one's real property to be forfeited in most states. People often lose vehicles, cash and other personal property that was obviously not acquired with illegal funds. In fact, most forfeiture laws even allow for forfeiture of funds one intended to use to buy drugs.

If these asset forfeiture laws were really just about depriving big time drug dealers of their ill-gotten gains it wouldn't bother me so much. But the reality is that the overwhelming majority of these forfeiture cases involve small amounts of money or property that are really important to the people and the families of the people this property is taken from. It's often the rent money, or a families only vehicle, and it's usually taken from people without the means to challenge the forfeiture. I couldn't say how much of it is the product of drug money, but the impression I get is that it's often not related to the drugs. It's just an extra punishment imposed on these people and it results in disparate treatment among defendants charged with the same crimes.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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

The usual "liberal" and "conservative" categories don't work well here. On the SCOTUS, Justices Rehnquist and Thomas have been the strongest supporters of forfeiture laws against Constitutional attacks.

[TKDietz]

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

Absolutely not.

[robertpaulsen]

"People are still entitled to due process of law before you deprive them of their property. Determining whether it's their property or not is part of the due process requirement."

I hope I didn't give you the impression that I disagreed with the above.

I don't know the details of the Texas forfeiture laws and how they apply to the case in the article. But The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 tightened up the federal laws whereby the government is required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (it used to be only probable cause) that the property is subject to forfeiture.

If the property was used to commit or facilitate the commission of a crime or was involved in the commission of a crime, the Government must show that there was a substantial connection between the property and the crime.

Given the facts contained in the article (and we can even ignore the criminal charges to make it simple), I would say the property could be seized. There was a forfeiture hearing. He lost the property. What "due process" was lacking?

You don't believe in the current asset forfeiture laws? Fine. I even think there's room for improvement. But to say that Ronnie Plunkett's property shouldn't be seized because you don't like the Texas asset forfeiture laws is irrelevant. That's a different argument.

You think asset forfeiture should be applied to "big time drug dealers"? You better define "big time" because some would say 250 pounds of marijuana is getting close. What would Plunkett's operation be worth left unchecked? I'd call it big time.

By the way, you've exhausted every argument but one -- aren't you going to proclaim that Ronnie Plunkett had no idea that marijuana was being grown on his farm? That he shouldn't be subject to asset forfeiture because of that?

[TKDietz]

I've argued all along that it is possible that Puckett did not know the pot was being grown on his land. I wouldn't call it "Puckett's operation" because I don't know that he had anything to do with it. The jury sure didn't seem to think there was enough evidence to prove he knew that pot was being grown on his land. You trudge on as if he was guilty of a crime. Personally, I need to see proof before I go convicting anyone. I've see plenty of cases where the circumstantial evidence looked bad for the defendant and then it turned out that the guy was clearly innocent.

We've beaten this horse to death. The more we get into it, the more apparent it becomes that we need more information about the case in order to have a fair and rational debate about it. And even if we did have more evidence, I'd say we’ve gone about as far as we are going to go with this one and we're getting to the point where nitpicking is more descriptive than debating for what is actually occurring on this thread.

You are correct in assuming that I do not like asset forfeiture laws. If it were up to me, we'd severely limit the instances under which forfeitures would be appropriate. And aside from just trying to make the forfeiture system fair, we'd make for strict oversight as to what happens with the forfeiture proceeds. The lion's share of the money would not go to the arresting law enforcement agencies and the local prosecutors like it does now. It would be earmarked for other purposes like programs designed to help people get off drugs or leave them alone in the first place. The other way turns our police into predators with screwy priorities and it leads to corruption and disparate treatment for different defendants.

Thanks for the debate. I have a feeling that deep down inside you have the many of the same complaints about our laws that I have. You're just not ready to stop defending failed policies yet. Give it time, sooner or later if you maintain an interest in these issues you'll start adding up all of the things that are really wrong with our system and you'll start pushing for reform too.

[headsonpikes]

A man cannot be reasoned out of a position he was not reasoned into.

Bump your optimism, however.

[headsonpikes]

A man cannot be reasoned out of a position he was not reasoned into.

Bump your optimism, however.

[robertpaulsen]

Just a little more information on the forfeiture itself.

[CSM]

"This is a State of Texas asset forfeiture. I have no idea how their asset forfeiture laws work and how they're implemented. That's all up to the citizens of Texas.

You are in favor of states rights, aren't you? That the people of each state determine how they want to live?

It just seems to me that you're kinda, you know, butting in on their affairs? Were you also in favor of butting in on Texas law to overturn their sodomy laws?

Hmmmm. I always figured you for a real 10th amendment person. But you think the federal government (we) should step in and overturn their asset forfeiture laws?"

Robert,

I can't believe you have made this argument. I will remember this and it will come back to you. Remember, in our discussions all state's rights are moot because of the commerce clause. If you really believe the claim you have made above, then you should be anti WOD at a federal level, instead your actual stance shows your true colors!

[robertpaulsen]

What can I say? This was a State of Texas civil asset forfeiture case, not a federal one. I was having fun with ellery on this -- I thought it was obvious.

I just find it highly inconsistent that people won't accept Texas law and turn to the federal government for protection -- and these are the same people who are all for states rights.

I, on the other hand, am perfectly consistent. I just look to the constitution.

[Gargantua]

"10 acres of marijuana plants on one's property and 250 pounds of marijuana in one's barn."

Perhaps your distortion is unintended, or just ignorance...

An "estimated" total of the grass found was alleged to be roughly 250 pounds.

I know how the agents grab this stuff, because a guy who lived near me got popped some years ago. The Feds grabbed the whole plant with clods of dirt on the roots and weighed the entire mess still wet.

The neighbor's two plants would have rendered 2-4 ounces of cured pot... less than is needed to get a conviction for "intent to distribute." On the other hand, he was charged with possession of 8 pounds due to the officers' knowingly fraudulent collection methods.

The agents know how this stuff is processed for use, and to knowingly misrepresent to the courts that this guy had "8 pounds" and intended to "distribute" was clearly a felony on the part of the thus-purjored agents.

But, I guess that taking a dangerous criminal off of the streets is more important than those silly Laws, huh? Not how the law was designed to work, my friend.

;-/

[robertpaulsen]

You are correct. It was 250 pounds in all, and I don't know how they weighed it and if it was wet or dry.

In addition, it was pointed out that the marijuana was planted "in" ten acres of corn -- it may not have been ten acres of marijuana.

So be it. Maybe half of it was dirt. That leaves about 125 pounds of marijuana. Clearly a felony amount. Clearly an asset forfeiture case.

Nothing changes.