State of Louisiana v. John Craig Bordelon

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

11-413

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JOHN CRAIG BORDELON

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20093958
HONORABLE EDWARD D. RUBIN, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JOHN D. SAUNDERS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, J. David Painter, and James T. Genovese,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Ronald E. Dauterive
Assistant DA
P. O. Box 3306
Lafayette, LA 70502
(337) 232-5170
Counsel for Plaintiff Appellee:
State of Louisiana

Richard Damian Mere
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 3301
Lafayette, LA 70502
(337) 269-5555
Counsel for Defendant Appellant:
John Craig Bordelon

SAUNDERS, Judge.

This is a forfeiture case wherein $23,287.00 was seized from a residence and

forfeited under the Seizure and Controlled Dangerous Substances Property

Forfeiture Act of 1989, La.R.S. 40:2601, et seq. The owner of the residence

challenged the forfeiture. The Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafayette,

issued a judgment ordering the forfeiture of the currency. The owner of the

residence appealed. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

On February 3, 2009, John Craig Bordelon (Bordelon) was arrested and

charged with monies derived from drug transactions, possession of Soma tablets,

and possession of drug paraphernalia. In conducting a search of Bordelon‟s home,

law enforcement seized, inter alia, $23,287.00 in United States Currency located in

a safe. On June 30, 2009, the State filed a petition for forfeiture of the currency.

On July 16, 2009, Bordelon answered this petition disputing the State‟s petition.

On August 2, 2010, a trial on this matter took place in Lafayette, Louisiana in the

Fifteenth Judicial District Court.

The trial court found that the State met its burden to prove that the currency

was derived from illegal activity and granted a judgment ordering the currency

forfeited to the State. Bordelon has appealed this judgment, asserting a single

assignment of error.

DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS:

In his only assignment of error, Bordelon argues that the trial court erred in

granting the forfeiture in the absence of sufficient evidence of all of the underlying

elements necessary to prove the forfeiture by a preponderance of the evidence. We

find no merit to Bordelon‟s argument.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 40:2604 states:

The following property is subject to seizure and forfeiture as
contraband, derivative contraband, or property related to contraband
under the provision of Section 4 of Article I of the Constitution of
Louisiana:

(1) All controlled substances, raw materials, or controlled
substance analogues that have been manufactured,
distributed, dispensed, possessed, or acquired in violation
of R.S. 40:961 et seq.

(2) All property that is either:

(a) Furnished or intended to be furnished by
any person in exchange for a controlled
substance in violation of R.S. 40:961 et seq.

(b) Used or intended to be used in any
manner to facilitate conduct giving rise to
forfeiture, provided that a conveyance
subject to forfeiture solely in connection
with conduct in violation of R.S. 40:961 et
seq. may be forfeited only pursuant to the
provisions of this Chapter.

(3) Proceeds of any conduct giving rise to forfeiture.

(4) All weapons possessed, used, or available for use in
any manner to facilitate conduct giving rise to forfeiture.

(5) Any interest or security in, claim against, or property
or contractual right of any kind affording a source of
control over any enterprise that a person has established,
operated, controlled, conducted, or participated in the
conduct of through conduct giving rise to forfeiture.

The district attorney has the initial burden of showing the existence of

probable cause for forfeiture of the property. La.R.S. 40:2612.

Probable cause is a “reasonable ground for belief of guilt, supported
by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.” It may
be established by demonstrating “„by some credible evidence, the
probability that the money was in fact drug related.‟” U.S. v. One
1987 Mercedes 560 SEL, 919 F.2d 327 (5th Cir.1990). “Probable
cause can be established by circumstantial or hearsay evidence.” The
government need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a
substantial connection exists between the forfeited property and the
illegal activity. Rather in forfeiture actions, the government merely
must demonstrate the existence of probable cause for belief that a
substantial connection exists between the property to be forfeited and
the illegal drug transaction. Furthermore, it is not necessary that the
2

government trace the property to a particular drug transaction. Rather,
it is the totality of the circumstances that leads to a finding of probable
cause. This evidence goes beyond a mere suspicion. It must be judged
not with clinical detachment but with a common sense view to the
realities of normal life. U.S. v. One 1987 Mercedes 560 SEL, supra.

State v. Albritton, 610 So. 2d 209, 213 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1992).

“[C]ircumstantial evidence and hearsay can be sufficient to establish

probable cause. Nevertheless, the trial court has the discretion to give such

evidence the import it deserves. . . . Factual determinations in civil

forfeiture cases will not be disturbed absent manifest error.” State v.

$29,177.00 U.S. Currency, 93-592, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/23/94), 638 So.2d

653, 657, writ denied, 94-1955 (La.11/28/94), 644 So.2d 378.

In the case before us, the trial court was presented with evidence that

Bordelon was arrested on three prior occasions for possession with intent to

distribute various illegal drugs. Regarding the arrest that resulted in

forfeiture currently before us, law enforcement received information from a

confidential informant that Bordelon was dealing illegal drugs from his

residence. Thereafter, a canine open air sniff outside Bordelon‟s residence

indicated the presence of narcotics. After obtaining a warrant, Bordelon‟s

residence was searched, and the following was recovered: one gram of

marijuana, a drug ledger notebook, 2 digital scales, storage and sealer bags,

crack cocaine push rods, a prescription bottle containing three Soma tablets,

and $23,287.00. Bordelon was then arrested for monies derived from drug

transactions, possession of Soma tablets, and possession of drug

paraphernalia.

Bordelon testified that the currency was from a combination of his

seasonal chimney sweep business and $20,000.00 he inherited from his

3

mother in 2002. Bordelon‟s claim of inheritance was corroborated by the

stipulated testimony of his brother, Randy.

The trial court weighed the evidence presented and determined that

the State carried its burden of proving that the currency was derived from

illegal activity under La.R.S. 40:2601, et seq. After a thorough review of the

record, we find no error in the trial court‟s determination. Given the totality

of the circumstances and the evidence presented, especially Bordelon‟s

nearly thirty-year history in dealing narcotics, the trial court could

reasonably find from “a common sense view to the realities of normal life”

probable cause existed that the large sum of money in Bordelon‟s residence

was derived from illegal activity, namely dealing illegal drugs. Accordingly,

we affirm the trial court‟s judgment.

CONCLUSION:

Bordelon raised one assignment of error that the State failed to meet

its burden of proof. We found no merit to this argument. Therefore, we

affirm the trial court‟s judgment. Defendant, John Craig Bordelon is cast

with all costs of this appeal.

AFFIRMED.

4