Marijuana.com

SirSmokesAlot

*** MODS*** I realize this is about property seizure, but PLEASE keep it in this forum. NOBODY goes to the seizure forum and this needs to be seen by as many people as possible!

I have been reading different state constitutions to gain further insight into property seizure laws. Some of the things I have found seem to show that property seizure in its present state is illegal and against the constitution of many states.

For my example I will use the Florida constitution:

**********
SECTION 9. Due process.--No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.
********

OK, so basically this says that no one shall have property seized without due proccess. Then why has it been going on for years without due proccess, as an accepted practice?


********
SECTION 17. Excessive punishment.--Excessive, cruel or unusual punishment, attainder, forfeiture of estate, indefinite imprisonment, and unreasonable detention of witnesses are forbidden.
********

So this says forfeiture of your estate is forbidden... (your house and land)


********
SECTION 19. Costs.--No person charged with crime shall be compelled to pay costs before a judgment of conviction has become final.
********

You know, I think I am starting to see a pattern here!! It seems to me that whoever wrote this constitution, wanted to make DAMN SURE that people weren't having their estates taken from them, and to make sure that they had due proccess before ANY property was taken from them. AND that the property that was taken from them, fit the crime that was committed!

So why the hell have our federal and state governments been STEALING our property from us for years??

Am I insane, or is this as plain as day??

 

dedbr

Look at the federal law first....
Seizures are a idea that came with the "lets deprive the criminals of profiting from their crimes."
In our country,Federal law supersedes the law of state.Even though we have state rights,federal laws will always supercede.

__________________
"Two roads divereged in a wood- and I, I took the ono less traveled by- and it has made all the difference.......Robert Frost

No law or ordinance is mightier than understanding.
Plato


Posting Guidelines!

SirSmokesAlot

I understand this, but I am talking about the property that is being seized by the states in this example.

But now that you brought it up I will post examples from the US Constitution that suport my viewpoint also.

********
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
********

Again, No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due proccess. AND it says that private property should not be taken without compensation.


********
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
********

Again, no excessive fines should be imposed... Is it just me or is taking someone's house and land an excessive fine??


********
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
********

This speaks to the estate aspect of the problem. The US Constitution does not delegate a right to your estate. BUT the Florida constitution does delegate that as a right to its citizens. Plus it says, 'or to the people'. So logic would follow that the Florida statute would hold up on its own for residents of that state.

dedbr

is using whatever set or law they think applies to each case.It just depends whether you have anything the cops want,in my opinion.

SirSmokesAlot

You have to read the article in this thread.

http://cheaptalk.marijuana.com/420/s...&threadid=2833

 

goodgirl

Sorry SirSmokesALot, but I am going to have move this over to Propety Seizure Laws despite your plea not to. We think all of the forums are important and if we don't post things in them then of course no one will go look in there

Peace
~GG

__________________
"Sometimes being a bitch is all you have to hold onto." ~Dolores Claiborne

Niteshift

"I will use the Florida constitution: "

Good. FL has a great forfeiture laws.

"OK, so basically this says that no one shall have property seized without due proccess. Then why has it been going on for years without due proccess, as an accepted practice?"

This is where your confusion starts. It says you won't be deprived of it without due process. Seizure, is merely taking custody of it as evidence. Forfeiture is when you lose ownership of it (ie, are deprived of it). Forfeiture only happens after a civil hearing in front of a judge, which is due process.

To illustrate this: Say you robbed a bank and I caught you. I would seize the gun you used as evidence. Obviously, that would be done right there, not waiting for a judge (I'm sure you'd agree that's logical). Then, if we decided to file a forfeiture case later on, that would go in front of a judge (due process).

"So this says forfeiture of your estate is forbidden... (your house and land)"

No, that isn't what it says. Civil forfeiture is not a fine or a penalty. It is the forfeiture of the "fruits of a crime".

Some people may be of the mistaken belief that if I find a stem in your car, your car is automaticly subject to forfeiture. This is not true. First, in FL, the crime involved must be a felony. Second, we must show, in court (due process) a nexus between the crime and the item we are seeking to have forfeit. Lastly, in FL, if we are not successful in the forfeiture proceeding, we must pay your legal bills. This prevents most cases from even happening unless we're pretty certain we're going to won.

"It seems to me that whoever wrote this constitution, wanted to make DAMN SURE that people weren't having their estates taken from them, and to make sure that they had due proccess before ANY property was taken from them. AND that the property that was taken from them, fit the crime that was committed!"

Again, no. The section you quoted does not apply because forfeiture is a civil proceeding. The re are no convictions in civil proceedings (except for civil infractions) The section you quoted only applies to criminal proceedings.

"Am I insane, or is this as plain as day??"

You're not insane and I'm glad you're actually reading some of the laws, but you are confusing terms and confusing criminal vs. civil. That is where you are having the problem.


dedbr:

"In our country,Federal law supersedes the law of state.Even though we have state rights,federal laws will always supercede."

That doesn't apply in seizure cases. If the violation or crime suspected is of a state law, then the states forfeiture laws apply.


Back to SSA:

"Again, No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due proccess."

Forfeiture occurs after a trial. That is due process.

"AND it says that private property should not be taken without compensation."

No, it says for public use. This means taking your land to build an exit ramp. When you get into that, there is a concept called emminent domain and it's confusing. The law says "just compensation", but who determines what is "just?"

Also, this does not apply because if we show, as we're required to in order to prevail at a forfeiture hearing (due process), a nexus between the crime and the property, then the property is considered a "fruit" (derivative) of the crime. Back to the bank robbery example...........We would take the cash you stole and it is not truly considered yours since it was gained as a result of criminal enterprise.

"Again, no excessive fines should be imposed... Is it just me or is taking someone's house and land an excessive fine?? "

No, because it's not a fine. You can argue it all you want, but under the law, forfeiture is NOT a fine. It may have the same effect on you financially, but under the law, it's not a fine and this doesn't apply.

"So logic would follow that the Florida statute would hold up on its own for residents of that state."

FL's forfeiture statute is well established and is considered by many to be very reasonable, especially because we are liable for the legal fees of a person if we do not prevail at the hearing.


dedbr:

"is using whatever set or law they think applies to each case.It just depends whether you have anything the cops want,in my opinion."

You're limiting your thinking to drug law only when you say that (which is not actually true anyway). You're forgetting that, for example, if you kill an endangered panther in FL (a felony) and drive it away in your pick-up, you are subject to forfeiture of the truck (and gun) under state law. However, this is not a violation of Federal law, so there would be no Federal forfeiture option.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

SirSmokesAlot

Let me start by saying thank you for the detailed reply...

Originally posted by Niteshift
"I will use the Florida constitution: "

Good. FL has a great forfeiture laws.

"OK, so basically this says that no one shall have property seized without due proccess. Then why has it been going on for years without due proccess, as an accepted practice?"

This is where your confusion starts. It says you won't be deprived of it without due process. Seizure, is merely taking custody of it as evidence. Forfeiture is when you lose ownership of it (ie, are deprived of it). Forfeiture only happens after a civil hearing in front of a judge, which is due process.

Thats not what it says in the FindLaw Legal Dictionary:

Deprive - To take away or withhold something from

http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scr...5b866dbe374095


Or the Lawyers.com legal dictionary:
Deprive - to take away or withhold something from

http://www.lawyers.com/lawyers-com/e...asp?SEQNO=2409

To 'withhold' something says nothing of its future. You can withhold something from someone for years and then give it back. That doesnt mean you havent deprived that person of that thing.

Now, Section 9 says 'No person shall be deprived of...property...without due proccess of law'. So, I ask again. Why is it common practice to seize someone's property without a trial and keep it to be sold at auction? (Also without preseizure hearing or notice, which I will get to in a minute)


To illustrate this: Say you robbed a bank and I caught you. I would seize the gun you used as evidence. Obviously, that would be done right there, not waiting for a judge (I'm sure you'd agree that's logical). Then, if we decided to file a forfeiture case later on, that would go in front of a judge (due process).

OK, Point taken, but... I refer you to:

SECTION 17. Excessive punishment.--Excessive, cruel or unusual punishment, attainder, forfeiture of estate, indefinite imprisonment, and unreasonable detention of witnesses are forbidden.

In no uncertain terms this section of the Florida Constitution says "forfeiture of estate are [is] forbidden" as an "excessive punishment".

So why oh why are estates being forfeitted in Florida? It says plain as day that forfeitting someone's estate is excessive punishment.

"So this says forfeiture of your estate is forbidden... (your house and land)"

No, that isn't what it says. Civil forfeiture is not a fine or a penalty. It is the forfeiture of the "fruits of a crime".

See this is where I get pissed. The state is depriving you of your estate because you committed a crime. If you had not committed that crime, the state would not have taken the estate from you. If you dont call that a fine or a penalty, then I dont know what you would call a fine or penalty. (See below on Supreme Court Decision about Civil Forfeiture being a punishment (fine or penalty)

I am NOT convinced that the majority of forfeitures involve property that actually is the fruit of a crime. How much of a role does the fungibility of money play in this?

Some people may be of the mistaken belief that if I find a stem in your car, your car is automaticly subject to forfeiture. This is not true. First, in FL, the crime involved must be a felony. Second, we must show, in court (due process) a nexus between the crime and the item we are seeking to have forfeit. Lastly, in FL, if we are not successful in the forfeiture proceeding, we must pay your legal bills. This prevents most cases from even happening unless we're pretty certain we're going to won.

Interesting, I am at least glad to hear that much. Could you possibly refer me to an all inclusive, definitive resource of Florida's Marijuana Laws? I tried looking in NORML and they seem to be rather incomplete.

"It seems to me that whoever wrote this constitution, wanted to make DAMN SURE that people weren't having their estates taken from them, and to make sure that they had due proccess before ANY property was taken from them. AND that the property that was taken from them, fit the crime that was committed!"

Again, no. The section you quoted does not apply because forfeiture is a civil proceeding. The re are no convictions in civil proceedings (except for civil [infractions) The section you quoted only applies to criminal proceedings.

Then why do they call it 'Criminal Forfeiture'?

http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scr...f6e990d9dec192

forfeit
v. to lose property or rights involuntarily as a penalty for violation of law. Example: the government can take automobiles or houses which are used for illegal drug trafficking or manufacture. A drug pusher may forfeit his/her car (property) if caught carrying drugs in it and found guilty. A parent may have to forfeit his/her house if his/her daughter is selling drugs from the house, even though the parent had nothing to do with and no knowledge of the drugs. One may have to forfeit one's driver's license or lose driving privileges due to multiple traffic violations or drunk driving.

http://dictionary.law.com

And...

FORFEITURE - To be divested or deprived of the ownership of something as a penalty for the commission of a crime. (2) To give up or surrender property (usually). (3) Obs. A vassal surrendering his land, or other property, to his lord, after conviction in the lord's court.

In the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 114 S.Ct. 492 ('93), the Court held that the seizure of real property for forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. S 881(a)(7) without prior notice and a hearing violates the owner's due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the immobility of real property ordinarily removes any resort to exigent circumstances to justify dispensing with the proper preseizure notice and hearing. Id. at 503. Other courts have held that Good applies retroactively. See, e.g., U.S. v. Real Property Located at 20832..., 51 F.3d 1402, 1405 (9th Cir.'95).

Well, I have read about quite a few seizure cases, and almost none of them involve a preseizure notice OR hearing. They usually involve police officers surprising someone and taking their property. the hearing doesnt come till later. This Supreme Court decision says that is illegal.

Austin v. U.S., 113 S.Ct. 2801 ('93) held that civil forfeitures under 21 U.S.C. S 881(a)(7) serve in part as punishment and are therefore subject to the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines.

Another court case saying that forfeitures ARE a punishment (penalty or fine), and fall under the the 8th Amendment.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f054.htm



"Am I insane, or is this as plain as day??"

You're not insane and I'm glad you're actually reading some of the laws, but you are confusing terms and confusing criminal vs. civil. That is where you are having the problem.


Back to SSA:

"Again, No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due proccess."

Forfeiture occurs after a trial. That is due process.

"AND it says that private property should not be taken without compensation."

No, it says for public use. This means taking your land to build an exit ramp. When you get into that, there is a concept called emminent domain and it's confusing. The law says "just compensation", but who determines what is "just?"

OK, Well I cannot give you an example on this one, I have looked through so many Supreme Court dockets that I cannot remember which case this is, BUT... I just read a Supreme Court case file this morning that said if property is seized, and it or its funds go to the use of any part of a community of a state, that it is considered 'public use', and its previous owner should be compensated. "Just Compensation" is a pretty easy term to define when it comes to property, especially real property. Fair Market Value. That is what's used in every other arena of this country to determine value, and often used in civil court as well to determine losses.(I will look for it again, I cant expect you to believe it on my assertion)

*** (added later) After searching some more I cannot find that case again, and I have just plain given up finding it for today. With everyhting flying around in my head that case could have been referring to property seized by the state as a part of development of some kind (such as a highway or on-ramp) Which probably has very different implications than that of a Criminal Forfeiture. However, it MAY have some effect on the Civil Forfeiture proceedings you have referred to. ***



Also, this does not apply because if we show, as we're required to in order to prevail at a forfeiture hearing (due process), a nexus between the crime and the property, then the property is considered a "fruit" (derivative) of the crime. Back to the bank robbery example...........We would take the cash you stole and it is not truly considered yours since it was gained as a result of criminal enterprise.

Again, I do not believe for one second that the majority of the property seized in the U.S. is a "fruit of the crime" it was seized for. I have read case after case of people having their houses taken from them because there were a few Marijuana plants growing on their property, some didnt even know about it. Please explain to me how a house is the fruit of the crime of growing Marijuana for personal use. Also explain how paying $200 of hard earned money for a felony amount of Marijuana and having it in your house makes that house a "Fruit of the Crime". It just doesnt add up, that house was owned by someone before they planted the personal plants, and before they bought the felony amount of Marijuana. But thats the way the chips seem to fall, consistently against the Marijuana user.

I wouldnt have so much of a problem with the system if it actually worked like you say it does (how it was intended), but I, a) Do not believe that it does work that way the majority of the time, and b) Have not seen evidence to support the claim that it works that way the majority of the time.


"Again, no excessive fines should be imposed... Is it just me or is taking someone's house and land an excessive fine??

No, because it's not a fine. You can argue it all you want, but under the law, forfeiture is NOT a fine. It may have the same effect on you financially, but under the law, it's not a fine and this doesn't apply.

Again, I refer you to:

"Austin v. U.S., 113 S.Ct. 2801 ('93) held that civil forfeitures under 21 U.S.C. S 881(a)(7) serve in part as punishment and are therefore subject to the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines. "

"So logic would follow that the Florida statute would hold up on its own for residents of that state."

FL's forfeiture statute is well established and is considered by many to be very reasonable, especially because we are liable for the legal fees of a person if we do not prevail at the hearing.

Again, I applaud that, but I dont think it works that way most of the time, and havent seen evidence to support it.

I think my problem is this: If every cop followed the rules like you do, there wouldnt be a problem. But as it stands right now, we have a huge problem in this country with seizures and forfeitures. There are too many people in too many places willing to look the other way. The police have an automatic advantage in drug related seizure cases because they (whether allowed by law or not) have an upper hand over the victim of the seizure. They can seize that person's property (real or otherwise) and then just never give it back to them. (Yes this happens, and no it is not rare. If you would like I will compile a list of cases in such a scenario) What is the person supposed to do after they have had their house seized? Let them keep the house or risk going to jail for a long time? Probably would end up letting them keep the house... Which I believe is an unconstitutional use of punishment to usurp the judicial proccess.


" 'The extent of the Government's financial stake in drug forfeiture is apparent from a 1990 memo, in which the Attorney General urged U.S. Attorneys to increase the volume of forfeitures in order to meet the Department of Justice's annual budget target . . . .' Good, 114 S.Ct. at 502 n.2. The 'war on drugs' has resulted in an enormous increase in federal asset forfeitures in the last decade. The federal government's annual net gain from all types of forfeitures grew from $27 million in 1985 to $531 million in 1992. Between 1985 and 1993, the Department of Justice seized $3.2 billion worth of assets. These assets include 'homes, land, businesses, currency, cars, planes, yachts, and livestock.' Pollack. State and local governments also benefit from federal forfeitures. In recent years, the Department of Justice has transferred $1.2 billion in cash and property to over 3,000 state and local agencies. The most recent GAO estimate ('92) puts the federal government's total forfeiture inventory at $1.9 billion. Civil forfeitures are thus a substantial source of revenue for both federal and local governments. "
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f054.htm

There is something terribly wrong with this picture. I hope you would agree. And I am not just talking about drug seizures at this point. It is a systematic campaign by the government to take our property from us in as many ways as possible


"is using whatever set or law they think applies to each case.It just depends whether you have anything the cops want,in my opinion."

You're limiting your thinking to drug law only when you say that (which is not actually true anyway). You're forgetting that, for example, if you kill an endangered panther in FL (a felony) and drive it away in your pick-up, you are subject to forfeiture of the truck (and gun) under state law. However, this is not a violation

I wont even get into THAT! I know someone who was put into JAIL for CATCHING AND KEEPING THE WRONG FISH!

(Land of the free MY ASS)

Niteshift

"Thats not what it says in the FindLaw Legal Dictionary: "

I understand, but there is a legal difference..........temporarily being denied use of something is seizure, permanently being deprived is forfeiture. I illustrated this with the evidence of a bank robbery example. You may disagree, but every court I've ever heard of agrees with me.

"Why is it common practice to seize someone's property without a trial and keep it to be sold at auction?"

Where is that common practice?

"In no uncertain terms this section of the Florida Constitution says "forfeiture of estate are [is] forbidden" as an "excessive punishment".

So why oh why are estates being forfeitted in Florida? It says plain as day that forfeitting someone's estate is excessive punishment."

First, you're making a leap from a car being forfeited to an "estate".

Second, the section you quoted applies to criminal punishment, not civil forfeiture hearings.

"The state is depriving you of your estate because you committed a crime. If you had not committed that crime, the state would not have taken the estate from you. If you dont call that a fine or a penalty, then I dont know what you would call a fine or penalty. "

Let's look at it from a non-drug angle. If you sell child pornography on the internet and use the money you make to buy a scanner and new computer, those items are obtained as a result of your criminal activity. Why should you be allowed to keep them? They were obtained as a result of unlawful activity and are, as a result, "profit". If a bank robber can't keep the money (profit) from a bank robbery, why should you keep it from breaking any other law?

"Could you possibly refer me to an all inclusive, definitive resource of Florida's Marijuana Laws?"

What are you looking for in specific? Almost all laws pertaining to mj are in Chapter 893 of Florida Statutes.

"Then why do they call it 'Criminal Forfeiture'?"

Who does? In FL, it's called the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. It comvers everything from drugs to untaxed gasoline.

Here is a link to the beginning of it :
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...01.HTM&Title=->2000->Ch0932->Section%20701

You might also find this passage relevant:
"(2) In each judicial circuit, all civil forfeiture cases shall be heard before a circuit court judge of the civil division, if a civil division has been established. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern forfeiture proceedings under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act unless otherwise specified under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.

(3) Any trial on the ultimate issue of forfeiture shall be decided by a jury, unless such right is waived by the claimant through a written waiver or on the record before the court conducting the forfeiture proceeding."

That can be found in FS 932.704


I'm not going to continue address the definitions you're posting, because they are generic definitions that don't necessarily apply. A "gun" defined under the laws of one state is not always a "gun" in another. I'm telling you what courts have ruled time and time again. If you disagree, you should address it with them.

Regarding the Good case................ did you read the statute being referenced?
" (7) All real property, including any right, title, and interest
(including any leasehold interest) in the whole of any lot or
tract of land and any appurtenances or improvements, which is
used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit,
or to facilitate the commission of, a violation of this
subchapter punishable by more than one year's imprisonment,
except that no property shall be forfeited under this paragraph,
to the extent of an interest of an owner, by reason of any act or
omission established by that owner to have been committed or
omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner. "

This is talking about a property you might own, but are unaware is being used in a crime. For example, say you are the First National Bank of SSA and you loaned me $13K to buy a car. I still owe $10K on the loan. I get caught using it to smuggle drugs and the cops seek forfeiture. You (the bank) are entitled to the $10K owed you, or the property, since you had no knowledge it was being used for criminal purposes. Now, say we're talking about a car worth $25K and you only owe $700 on it, we (the police) will pay the bank $700 and then own the car.

You're misapplying this concept.

"Please explain to me how a house is the fruit of the crime of growing Marijuana for personal use."

Forfeiture also applies to instrumentalities of a crime. If you buy a gun and use it to commit a robbery, it's not a product of the crime, rather an instrumentality, therefore part of the offense itself. That makes is contraband.

If you grow pot in your house, it is an instumentality of the crime. It is being used in furtherence of the criminal activity and it, therefore, part of the offense.

"a) Do not believe that it does work that way the majority of the time, and b) Have not seen evidence to support the claim that it works that way the majority of the time."

Then show me where it does not work the way I say the majority of the time.

": If every cop followed the rules like you do, there wouldnt be a problem. "

The vast majority do.

"What is the person supposed to do after they have had their house seized? Let them keep the house or risk going to jail for a long time? Probably would end up letting them keep the house... "

If I knew it had nothing to do with a criminal enterprise I'd fight it. Especially in FL, because if I win, the govt. pays my lawyer bills.

"I wont even get into THAT! I know someone who was put into JAIL for CATCHING AND KEEPING THE WRONG FISH!"

I can use a different example if you like.


Bottom line here: You're pretty much asking me to "defend" the forfeiture laws. I have no need to do it. That's what lawyers get paid to do. All I'm trying to do is show you where your view and the courts view differ based on my training and experience.

SirSmokesAlot

What do you think of this?

http://www.officer.com/cgi-bin/ubb/u...c&f=3&t=000118

I see it as the same evil that is affecting Marijuana smokers, but now expanding to include even more victims who do not deserve to be thrown out of their houses. All in the name of the War on Drugs. (Which should really be called the War on Citizens Who Use Illegal Substances)

I have a real big problem when the government starts barring people from their houses and taking the houses from them over offenses that have caused no harm to anyone. Enjoying Marijuana is about as harmful as having an unloaded gun in your closet. Even one that could shoot a million bullets in a second if it were loaded.

Which brings me to the realization that I am going after the wrong issues. I now realize that our Constitution has literally been mangled to fit the desires of so many politicians, that it is in desperate need of repair. My mistake was confusing what is Just and Right with what is written into law.

I am having trouble sorting your opinion from your support of the law as a LEO. Or is everything you say on here support of the law as a LEO?

I ask this because any politician can play word games with loopholes till the cows come home. I guess I am speaking more to what is right, and in the case of the constitution, what was intended. (Which looks pretty apparent to me, it doesnt get much more direct than forfeiture of estate is forbidden as excessive punishment.)

What do you believe the lawmakers' intentions were when they wrote into the Florida constitution:

" SECTION 17. Excessive punishment.--Excessive, cruel or unusual punishment, attainder, forfeiture of estate, indefinite imprisonment, and unreasonable detention of witnesses are forbidden. "

I must say though, thank you for this. I now understand that I have been going about it the wrong way trying to prove that it is wrong under our current laws. I forgot that our laws are what brought us where we are today, putting Peaceful, otherwise Law-Abiding Citizens into cages and taking their homes, because they enjoyed the Marijuana plant.