Anyone ever had one of these to contest? If so, do you treat it like the criminal or is it different?

I don't do forfeitures (I work for a state agency), but TDCAA has a 2010 book on Asset Forfeitures that might help.

Janette A

I had the issue come up several years ago. In the companion criminal case the dope was suppressed, the Court ruling evidence of consent not clear and convincing. I was about to non-suit the forfeiture but then noticed in the pro-se answer the defendant/respondent stated "I never would have consented to the search if I had known there was dope in the car." He ultimately retained an attorney for the forfeiture and we tried it to the bench, same judge. They objected to testimony about the results of the warrant-less search. The judge announced that he would rule after all the evidence. I called the defendant/respondent to the stand and after some argument about the 5th amendment privileged, he testified consistent with his original answer. The judge forfeited the vehicle to the state.

No appeal was taken, so I don't know if we did it right or not.

Chapter 59 forfeiture proceedings are governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, both for pleading and litigation. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 59.05(a), (b). While common in criminal litigation, the motion to suppress is not a generally recognized procedure in civil cases. Thus, there is an argument (that has not yet been definitively addressed by a Texas appellate court) that the correct procedure for assertion of illegality in the search and seizure that is the basis for the forfeiture should be through a motion for return of the property or, perhaps, a motion for summary judgment. Either of these motions would logically be based on assertion of the exclusionary rule, and that question remains officially unsettled in Texas, according to the Texas Supreme Court. See State v. $217,590.00 in U.S. Currency, 18 S.W.3d 631, 632 n. 1 (Tex. 2000); see also State v. Five Thousand Five Hundred Dollars in U.S. Currency, 296 S.W.3d 696, 701 n.2 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2009, no pet.). For an illuminating intra-court debate about the topic, take a look at the majority and dissenting opinions in State v. Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Dolars and No/100 ($30,660.00) in U.S. Currency, 136 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2004, pet. denied); see also $217,590.00 in U.S. Currency, 18 S.W.3d at 636 (Abbott, J., dissenting) (questioning whether exclusionary rule properly applies in chapter 59 proceedings).

General Abbott's concurring opinion aside, I think it's pretty well settled that the exclusionary rule (based on 4th amendment violations) applies to state civil asset forfeiture cases including ch.59. Reviewing this issue from a Pennsylvania state asset forfeiture law, scotus held in One 1958 Plymouth, 380 U.S. 693 (1965), that the exclusionary rule applied to any civil forfeiture case requiring a determination that the criminal law has been violated. Not sure why it would be any different for Texas state forfeiture law.

However, it probably does not follow that that the exclusionary rules tiggered by other constitutional violations would necessarily apply in civil forfeiture cases. i.e. since there's not right to counsel in civil forfeiture cases, there wouldn't be a basis for invoking exclusinoary rule in forfeiture case based on Sixth Amendment violation.