Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): S.W.2d 759, 767 (Tex.Ciim.App.1973) (stating that seizure conducted within parameters of a valid search warrant did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights where officers acted in accordance with procedural guidelines). Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s third and fourth issues. In his fifth and sixth issues, appellant contends that the method of seizure violated the constitutional provisions prohibiting ex post facto laws found in article I, section 10, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 16 of the Texas Constitution. Ex post facto prohibitions apply to civil statutes only when the statutory scheme is so punitive either in purpose or effect as to transform what was clearly intended as a civil remedy into a criminal penalty. See Rodriguez, 93 S.W.3d at 67 (<HOLDING>). Forfeitures under chapter 59 of the code of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the interpretation of statutory language should be consistent with the legislatures purpose and intent (B) holding that courts must generally give effect to the plain meaning of a statute because that is the best evidence of the legislatures intent (C) holding that the legislatures manifest intent will be rejected only where the party challenging the statute provides the clearest proof that the statute is actually criminally punitive in operation (D) recognizing language of statute as clearest indicator of legislative intent (E) holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute
Output (English): holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute