"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.
"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?