innocent third party’s interest in property. The government’s acquisition of an entire tract of real property in forfeiture proceedings may thus constitute an unconstitutional taking of a third party’s interest or a deprivation of that party’s property without due process, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. V; see also United States v. Totaro, 345 F.3d 989, 999 (8th Cir.2003) (“If this court were to deem forfeited the entire estate despite a valid claim of partial ownership by a third party, ... [i]t would ... punish the third party, against whom no jury has returned a verdict of guilt, and may therefore raise constitutional questions of a whole different order.”) (citation omitted); United States v. One 1976 Chevrolet Corvette, 477 F.Supp. 32, 35 (E.D.Pa.1979) (<HOLDING>). Cf. Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing
holding that operation of forfeiture statute against bona fide purchaser violates fifth amendment holding that the statement ill take the fifth was an assertion of the fifth amendment privilege holding that dna act violates neither substantive nor procedural due process under the fifth amendment holding that both fourth amendment warrant and probable cause and fifth amendment due process requirements apply to civil forfeiture proceedings holding that forfeiture of funds to be used for legal fees does not violate the fifth or sixth amendment