Source: http://tdcaa.infopop.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/257098965/m/5597035516?r=5217065516
Timestamp: 2020-07-04 01:24:17
Document Index: 296622183

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 18', 'Art. 18', 'Art. 18', 'art. 18', 'Art. 18', 'art. 59', 'Art. 18']

Art. 18.18 - Topic
TDCAA TDCAA Community Civil Art. 18.18
Art. 18.18
Eddie_R
I am new to the asset forfeiture and art. 18.18 world. Is there someone out there i can call or email who handles Art. 18.18 on the regular and give me some advice on how to proceed on these type of cases?
Posts: 2 | Location: Edinburg, Texas | Registered: July 18, 2016 IP
July 25, 2016 17:34
Check out TDCAA's new updated book on Asset Forfeiture. It should be very helpful.
puroag
September 20, 2016 17:07
We've done quite a bit of 18.18 forfeitures. None have been contested as of yet, but have had to research and ask others. If we can be any help, feel free to contact us.
Posts: 7 | Location: Rio Grande City, Texas | Registered: April 14, 2006 IP
Ignored post by puroag posted
tc prosecutor
September 21, 2016 09:14
I just saw your message about help with asset forfeiture questions as well as help with 18.18.
I will be more than happy to answer questions on asset forfeiture under chapter 59.
I am just learning 18.18 gambling forfeitures, but I will try and answer any questions you might have.
Posts: 1 | Location: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: September 21, 2016 IP
Ignored post by tc prosecutor posted
September 21, 2016 16:14
I have a ton of pleadings on 8-liner cases. I'm happy to share them with two caveats: they're in WordPerfect format and they're 10 years old. If those impediments are not fatal, let me know and I'll send them along. I'm up for answering questions as well, but not intelligently.
Posts: 21 | Location: Canyon, Texas, USA | Registered: June 07, 2006 IP
Ignored post by Richard Gore posted
September 29, 2016 15:39
Any thoughts on the applicability of 18.18 to spurs and gaffs from a cockfighting case? My initial thought was that "criminal instrument" or "gambling paraphernalia" would cover them, but there is specific language about dog fighting that concerns me.
pink dickens
November 08, 2016 15:57
I have been notified that DPS has $2,000 that was paid to them in a sting to catch a woman looking for a hitman. The Money was not forfeit under Article 59 and DPS has had it for four years in evidence. I have been attempting to forfeit the money but I do not see how under article 18.18 It does not appear to qualify as a criminal instrument. Does anyone have any ideas.
Posts: 4 | Location: Victoria, Texas | Registered: September 22, 2003 IP
Ignored post by pink dickens posted
November 15, 2016 15:18
As to the $2000 held in evidence - Since the money was never seized under Ch. 59, art. 59.04(a) requirement that the attorney representing the state commence proceedings not later than 30th day has not been triggered.
Have a peace officer obtain an 18.02(12) seizure warrant, Seize the $2000 under Ch. 59, commence Ch. 59 proceedings within 30 days.
I realize it being a fine distinction as to the reason for the seizure, but the Ch. 59 does specify "seizes property under this chapter." It may not work, one way or another you will get the cash out of the evidence room. Plus if the funds are awarded to the defendant, you might be able to collect any outstanding fines and costs.
dreuthin
September 22, 2017 14:19
Today the Texas Supreme Court denied the State's petition for review in In Re Gambling Devices and Proceeds, No. 16-0551. The issue in this case was whether a defendant can block an Article 18.18 forfeiture by challenging the search warrant under Articles 18.12-13, or more technically, whether such a warrant challenge results in appealable civil judgment. The answer, unfortunately, is that yes the defendant can do this, and no, the State cannot appeal. This is at odds with Lincoln Navigator, 494 S.W.3d 690, where the SCOTX said that a Chapter 59 case could not be cut off on the basis of a challenge to the criminal probable cause for the search.
After this decision, I think Article 18.18 is probably dead. If Lincoln Navigator would prevent this type of challenge in a chapter 59 case, there is no longer any reason to go with 18.18 if 59 is an option in a given seizure. 18.18 can get you a faster disposition, but you risk an ancillary warrant challenge popping up and mooting out your seizure.
Posts: 1 | Location: Webb and Zapata Counties | Registered: December 17, 2013 IP
Ignored post by dreuthin posted
Quick Reply to: Art. 18.18