STATE EX REL. TUCUMCARI v. (104,999.00)
| Decision Date | 20 July 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 20,605.,20,605. |
| Citation | 10 P.3d 876,129 N.M. 552,2000 NMCA 84 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico ex rel. TUCUMCARI POLICE DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ONE HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED NINETY-NINE DOLLARS AND NO/100 ($104,999.00) IN U.S. CURRENCY IN THE POSSESSION of Vera Rebecca WALTON and Charles B. Jones and Claimed by Darrell Strickland, and all Unknown Claimants of Interest in the Premises Adverse To Plaintiff, Defendants-Appellants. |
Patricia A. Madrid, Attorney General, Ann M. Harvey, Ass't Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee.
Dean E. Border, Border Law Office, P.A. Tucumcari, NM, for Appellants.
Certiorari Denied, No. 26,493, September 13, 2000.
{1} Darryl Strickland (Defendant) appeals from the trial court's judgment and order determining that money seized from his vehicle during a routine traffic stop is subject to forfeiture under the New Mexico Controlled Substances Act (the Act). See NMSA 1978, §§ 30-31-1 through -42 (1972, as amended through 1997). On appeal, Defendant asks us to reverse the trial court's judgment on the ground that the Tucumcari Police Department (the Department) failed to present any evidence that he obtained the seized money in connection with committing a criminal offense covered under and prohibited by the Act. We agree with Defendant and reverse the trial court's judgment.
{2} Defendant's stepdaughter and a male companion were traveling in Defendant's vehicle in Tucumcari, New Mexico, when they were stopped by a Department police officer for exceeding the speed limit and for opening the door on the driver's side of the vehicle while the vehicle was in motion. The police officer asked the occupants where they were traveling from, where they were traveling to, and why they were traveling in the first place. Both occupants stated that they were traveling to their home state of Texas after visiting the stepdaughter's sick uncle. However, they gave conflicting responses as to the state from which they were returning. The stepdaughter claimed they were returning from Kansas City, Kansas, while her male companion claimed they were returning from St. Louis, Missouri.
{3} The police officer became suspicious after eliciting this and a few other conflicting statements from the stepdaughter and her driving companion. In light of his suspicions, the police officer asked the stepdaughter for consent to search Defendant's vehicle for weapons, drugs, and large amounts of cash. She honored the police officer's request and signed a form giving him consent to search the vehicle.
{4} The police officer did not find any weapons or drugs in the vehicle. However, in the course of his search, the police officer discovered a backpack in the vehicle's trunk, which his dog alerted on. He located and then removed from the backpack two shoe boxes, which contained several duct-taped bundles of currency. Both occupants denied knowledge and reputed ownership of the currency, which amounted to $104,999.00. After police questioning, the stepdaughter stated that the money belonged to her stepfather. According to the stepdaughter, she and her driving companion had met a man at a motel in Kansas the previous night, and he had placed the backpack in the vehicle for her stepfather.
{5} When the police officer contacted Defendant about this incident, Defendant initially denied knowing anything about the backpack or the money contained in the backpack. A few minutes later, Defendant changed his posture and admitted to the police officer that the money belonged to him. Defendant stated that although he did not know exactly how much money was in the backpack, the money was proceeds from a legitimate boot supply business he owned and operated in Texas. The police officer decided at that point to hold the money pending proof of ownership.
{6} The Department subsequently assigned two police officers to investigate whether Defendant's purported business actually existed and whether the seized money was generated by sales contracts entered into and performed by that business. The police investigators visited the address Defendant had listed as his business address. Instead of finding a business, they found a residence with no indications of a business. The police investigators also reviewed receipts Defendant offered to substantiate his claim that the seized money was proceeds from sales. They found several spelling errors and other discrepancies that made them question the validity of the proffered receipts. The police investigators ultimately concluded that the seized money was not generated by Defendant's business. The officers also sent the backpack and bundles of money to the crime lab, but no drugs were found.
{7} The Department, based on the foregoing, filed a civil forfeiture action against Defendant. The Department claimed it was entitled to the seized money because it was the fruit or instrumentality of a drug-related crime Defendant had committed in violation of the Act. No criminal charges were filed against anyone. After conducting a trial on the matter, the trial court agreed with the Department and entered a judgment in its favor. Defendant now appeals.
{8} The trial court forfeited Defendant's money in favor of the Department on the ground that the Department "made a prima facie showing that the currency seized herein was the fruit and/or instrumentality of a drug transaction." Defendant contends that the trial court erred because the Department failed to present any evidence that he committed a criminal offense covered under the Act. We agree with Defendant that the Department had to prove he committed a violation of the Act before his money could be forfeited, and that the Department failed to meet its burden of proof in this case.
{9} The property subject to forfeiture under the Act is listed in Section 30-31-34. This section specifically provides that the following property may be forfeited:
To continue reading
Request your trial