Proc. Ann. § 59.02(c)(1) (Vernon 2006) (providing that owner’s property may not be forfeited only if owner “did not know or should not reasonably have known of the act or omission giving rise to the forfeiture or that it was likely to occur”). The purpose of article 47.01a, in contrast, is to return property to its rightful owner, not to enable the State to obtain property as a means to deter criminal activity through the imposition of an economic penalty. See Act of May 27, 1977, 65th Leg, R.S., ch. 813, 1977 Tex. Gen. Laws 2034, 2034 (describing act creating article 47.01a as “relating to the return of stolen property to the rightful owner when no criminal trial is pending”); Universal Underwriters Group v. State, 283 S.W.3d 897, 899-901 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); White, 930 S.W.2d at 676 n. 2 (considering
holding state not entitled to retain stolen property under article 4701a simply because rightful owners gross negligence made it possible for thief to steal it holding that negligence does not violate the due process clause but reserving the question whether gross negligence does holding that dawson proscribes gross negligence holding that it is not holding that ordinary negligence and gross negligence are not separate causes of action