Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; June 1, 2018; Alabama; State Appellate Court
An in rem forfeiture action was initiated by the State of Alabama in the Cleburne Circuit Court involving $13,325.30 in currency confiscated from Marcel A. Blackwell during a traffic stop related to a marijuana possession charge. The State argued that the currency was connected to violations of controlled substances laws under Ala. Code 1975, § 20-2-93. Blackwell, initially representing himself, later had counsel who filed an amended answer without additional defenses. After a hearing where testimony was presented, the trial court ruled in favor of the State, awarding $13,020 of the currency to the State and $305.30 back to Blackwell. Blackwell's postjudgment motion for relief was deemed denied due to the court's inaction by the statutory deadline. On appeal, Blackwell argued that the trial court erred by not ruling in his favor, claiming the State did not prove the currency's connection to a specific drug law violation. The appeal focused on the trial court's denial of his dispositive motion and the final judgment, both subject to a standard of review that presumes the trial court's findings are correct unless shown to be palpably erroneous. The principle that findings based on ore tenus evidence are presumed correct was emphasized, while noting that legal conclusions by the trial judge do not receive the same presumption.
Claimant and his wife reside in California. He has a criminal history, including a 2005 federal conviction for attempting to sell narcotics, which resulted in imprisonment. At trial, he identified himself as an unlicensed automobile broker operating as "Deals on Wheels," earning about $25,000 annually, and occasionally making income from food preparation for resale. His wife withdrew $4,500 from her retirement account to help him buy a replacement vehicle after her car broke down.
The claimant traveled to Atlanta, Georgia, for a friend's aunt's funeral, taking the $4,500 with him. He intended to acquire a 2004 Honda Accord in Louisiana and planned to drive back to California. During his stay in Atlanta, he and his friend Steve Latha, along with two female companions, spent several days socializing and raised approximately $10,000 for funeral expenses through various fundraising efforts.
On April 11, 2016, a police officer observed the claimant driving a red Nissan Versa at high speed in poor weather conditions. The vehicle was stopped after failing to maintain its lane. Upon approaching the car, the officer noted marijuana debris in the center console. After asking the claimant to exit the vehicle, the officer noticed a bulge in the claimant's clothing that contained a plastic bag with $10,000. The claimant claimed the money was intended for a "vehicle hull," but could not specify the source. The officer arrested the claimant and returned a heat-sealed bag of currency found in the vehicle, which the police dog indicated as having positive signs of interest. The traffic stop occurred at 9:12 p.m. local time.
The police officer collected various documents from a Nissan vehicle, including: a rental agreement for a red Nissan Versa issued to Lakeidre Randle with a return date of March 7, 2016; receipts from the West End U.S. Postal Service in Atlanta showing purchases of two $1,000 money orders and postage by Steve Latha on the same date; bank deposit receipts totaling $4,700 on March 7, 2016; illegible receipts from Bank of America; a purchase receipt from a department store; fast-food receipts from March 22 and March 24, 2016; a receipt from a discount retailer for luggage; multiple receipts from U.S. Postal Service branches for additional money orders and postage on April 11, 2016; and a sealed medical cannabis permit for the claimant. At trial, the claimant acknowledged only the cannabis permit. During a traffic stop, police found $13,020 in cash and an additional $305.30 in the claimant's wallet. The claimant pleaded guilty to second-degree possession of marijuana and received a sentence of "time served" with a treatment directive. According to Ala. Code 1975, § 20-2-93(a)(4), the state can forfeit money related to controlled substance violations. The state must establish a prima facie case in forfeiture proceedings, which require proof to a reasonable satisfaction, as outlined in Williams v. State. The statute is penal and must be strictly construed, following Ex parte McConathy.
Appellate courts in the state have established that mere proximity of drugs to cash does not meet the State's burden of proof in forfeiture cases, as seen in Gatlin v. State and further clarified in McConathy, which requires concrete evidence linking currency to specific drug transactions. In the present case, a police officer testified during cross-examination that the service dog's indication of drugs in a rental Nissan did not provide sufficient grounds for charging the claimant with possession of marijuana with intent to sell, as the amount found was insufficient. Additionally, the officer noted the absence of drug paraphernalia in the vehicle and that receipts discovered therein were not linked to the claimant, suggesting they could have belonged to someone else who rented the car. The officer was unable to trace the source of the seized funds and confirmed that the claimant had only been in Georgia briefly before traveling to Alabama. The State's evidence pointed to questionable activities related to another individual, Steve Latha, but failed to connect the claimant to any specific drug transaction. The State's appeal relies on Wherry v. State, which is deemed distinguishable since that case involved currency directly linked to controlled drug purchases, unlike the current situation where no such connection to drug transactions is established.
Johnson v. State, 667 So.2d 105 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995) is distinguishable because the currency in this case was found directly on the claimant, while in Johnson, it was found in a common container with drug residue and paraphernalia. Similarly, Harris v. State, 821 So.2d 177 (Ala. 2001) is distinguishable due to evidence of ongoing illegal drug transactions linked to the location from which currency was seized, which is absent here. The court agrees with the claimant that the State did not establish a prima facie case showing that the currency recovered on April 11, 2016, was connected to violations of Alabama controlled substances laws. Thus, the trial court's judgment in favor of the State was legally erroneous, leading to a reversal and remand for a judgment consistent with this opinion. The judges concurred. The claimant's reference to a "motion for a directed verdict" is outdated; the correct approach in a nonjury trial is a motion under Rule 52, Ala. R. Civ. P. The trial court's order denying the claimant's postjudgment motion is deemed a nullity. The court refrains from commenting on potential federal forfeiture of the seized currency under 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(6).
