State of Louisiana v. $144,320.00 Tina Beers

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 11-1137

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

$144,320.00 TINA BEERS
132 WOODY LANE,
SILER CITY, NC 27344, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. MARTIN, NO. 74400
HONORABLE KEITH RAYNE JULES COMEAUX, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

BILLY HOWARD EZELL
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Billy Howard Ezell, and James T. Genovese,
Judges.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

Genovese, J., concurs and assigns written reasons.

Phil Haney
District Attorney
307 Church Street
St. Martinville, LA 70582
(337) 394-2220
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Kim Michael Kidd
Walter J. Sennette, Jr.
Assistant District Attorneys
307 Church Street
St. Martinville, LA 70582
(337) 394-2220
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Pride Justin Doran
Quincy L. Cawthorne
The Doran Law Firm
P. O. Box 2119
Opelousas, LA 70571
(337) 948-8008
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
Tina M. Beers
Brittany Beers

Ezell, Judge.

Tina and Brittany Beers appeal the forfeiture of $144,320.00 seized from

Tina Beers during a routine traffic stop, alleging the seizure was made without

probable cause. For the following reasons, we agree and reverse the decision of

the trial court.

The facts of this case were set out by this court in a prior decision, State v.

$144,320.00 U.S. Currency, 09-954, pp.1-2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/3/10), 29 So.3d

1266, 1266-67, writ denied, 10-821 (La. 6/18/10), 38 So.3d 324 (footnote omitted).

On January 10, 2009, Trooper Troy Dupuis of the Louisiana
State Police stopped a vehicle driven by Tina Beers for a traffic
violation in St. Martin Parish, Louisiana. Tina Beers consented to a
search of the vehicle. As a result of the search, the police located nine
bundles of cash totaling $144,320.00 which was hidden in a
compartment in the floor of the vehicle. A police dog performed a
“narcotics sniff” on the money and was alerted by the scent of
narcotics on the money.

Tina Beers, after being advised of her rights, waived her rights
and proceeded to answer questions posed by the police. She admitted
that she was the owner of the vehicle; however, she stated that the
money was not hers, and she denied having knowledge of the
presence of the money in the vehicle. At that time, Tina Beers signed
a Disclaimer of Ownership of Currency of Property wherein she stated
that she was not the owner of the $144,320.00. The money was then
seized by the state police.

On January 13, 2009, the State filed an Application for Warrant
of Seizure for Forfeiture, a Letter of Designation which authorized the
Louisiana State Police to seize the money and hold it subject to the
forfeiture proceedings, and a Notice of Pending Forfeiture. On that
same date, the trial court signed the accompanying Warrant of Seizure
for Forfeiture. The Notice of Pending Forfeiture contains the service
information reflecting personal service on Tina Beers on January 10,
2009. This service information is derived from the Disclaimer of
Ownership of Currency of Property which was filed into the record of
these proceedings and specifically states that Tina Beers waived
notice of seizure and forfeiture on January 10, 2009, when she was
stopped by Trooper Dupuis.

Tina Beers and Brittany Beers filed a Motion for Probable
Cause Hearing Regarding Pending Notice of Forfeiture and for
Release of Seized Property on January 22, 2009, asserting their
ownership of the $144,320.00. The State filed a Motion to Strike

Claim on February 19, 2009. These two motions came before the trial
court on April 8, 2009, at which time the trial court took the matter
under advisement. The trial court rendered Reasons for Judgment on
May 7, 2009, in favor of Tina Beers.

This court went on to reverse that ruling, finding that Tina Beers had not

only waived any right she may have had to notice of forfeiture proceedings, but

that she obviously had also received such notice, as evidenced by her claim for the

return of the money. We remanded the case to the trial court for the a

determination as to whether probable cause existed for the seizure. Despite the

fact that no illegal narcotics were found in the vehicle at the stop, there was no

information that the seized currency was intended for drug-related use, or the fact

that Tina Beers was never charged with or even alleged to have committed any

drug-related crime, the trial court found that there was probable cause for the

forfeiture of the cash simply because a prior magistrate had signed a warrant for

the money’s seizure. From that decision, Tina and Brittany Beers appeal.

The Beers assert three assignments of error on appeal. They claim that the

trial court erred in ruling probable cause existed for the seizure; that the trial court

erred in striking the affidavit of Brittany Beers; and that the trial court erred in

failing to grant Brittany Beers’ exception of lack of service. Because we agree

with the Beers’ first assignment of error, we need not address them all.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 40:2603 states:

Any of the following conduct gives rise to forfeiture:

(1) An act or omission punishable by confinement for more
than one year under R.S. 40:961 et seq. whether or not there is a
prosecution or conviction related to the act or omission.

(2) An act or omission occurring outside this state, which would
be subject to prosecution in the place of occurrence and would be
described in Paragraph (1) of this Section if the act or omission
occurred in this state, whether or not it is prosecuted in any state.

2

(3) Any act or omission committed in furtherance of any
violation of R.S. 40:961 et seq. which is punishable by confinement
with or without hard labor, including any inchoate or preparatory
offense, regardless of whether there is a prosecution or conviction
related to the act or omission.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 40:2604 goes on to state, in pertinent part:

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:

....

(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.

In State v. Gauthier, 02-1227, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/17/03), 854 So.2d 910, 912,

this court noted:

The initial burden in civil forfeiture proceedings is on the State
to show probable cause for the forfeiture. La.R.S. 40:2612(G); State v.
$29,177.00 U.S. Currency, 93-592 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/2/94), 638 So.2d
653, writ denied, 94-1955 (La.10/28/94), 644 So.2d 378; State v. Cash
Totalling [sic] $15,156.00, 623 So.2d 114 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ
denied, 629 So.2d 401 (La.1993). To support a finding that probable
cause exists for forfeiture of property, the evidence presented by the
State must be sufficient to form a reasonable ground for the belief that
the property was connected with illegal drug transactions. State v.
Cash Totalling [sic] $15,156.00, 623 So.2d 114. While the ultimate
determination of probable cause is a legal question; the findings of
fact which lead to a probable cause determination are subject to the
manifestly erroneous-clearly wrong standard. State v. $29,177.00 U.S.
Currency, 638 So.2d at 653 (on rehearing). Thus, much deference
must be given to the factual findings of the trial court as long as a
review of the record as a whole shows those findings were reasonably
supported. Id.

3

Thus, the State was required to show, by credible evidence and by more than mere

suspicion, a reasonable ground for belief that the currency in Tina Beers’ vehicle

was drug related and/or that the vehicle was used to facilitate a drug transaction.

There are indeed facts which provide a suspicion that the cash could be of less than

honest origins. For example, Tina Beers claimed at the time of the seizure she was

earning only $300.00 a week, and the cash was found in a floor compartment.1

However, the record before this court shows no credible evidence whatsoever that

the currency was related in any way to any drug transaction or activity. In fact, the

State failed to charge Tina Beers with, or even allege any connection with, drug-

related activity or any other conduct under La.R.S. 40:2603 giving rise to

forfeiture. Tina Beers was stopped for a routine traffic violation, which is not even

named in the record, not for any behavior indicative of drug activity. The State

admitted no drugs or paraphernalia were found at the time of the stop or at any

later time. There is no evidence of any prior history of drug dealing or even use on

the part of Tina Beers before this court. A narcotics dog hitting on the cash alone

does not provide probable cause in light of the prevalence of currency in

circulation which would cause such a strike.2 The fact that she was driving on I-10

or that she, a North Carolina resident, did not know the name of a hospital in

Houston (her stated destination at the time of the stop), certainly do not provide

evidence of any drug endeavor. Simply put, there is no credible evidence

whatsoever presented by the State of any substantial connection between the seized

cash and any drug activity or cause for forfeiture in the record before this court.

1
The floor compartment has been alleged by the State to be a “hidden compartment,” but
there is no description in the record to indicate that this was a nefariously created hiding place,
rather than a mere floor compartment common in many mini vans.
2
Recent studies have found that a majority of the currency in circulation contains drug
residue, in certain areas, up to ninety-five percent.
4

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s finding that there existed probable cause

for the forfeiture of the seized cash.

Having determined that the State must return the money, we will briefly

address to whom it should be returned. Louisiana Revised Statutes 40:2612 states,

in pertinent part:

C. Only an owner of or an interest holder in the property may
file an answer asserting a claim against the property in an action in
rem. For the purposes of this Section, an owner of or interest holder in
property who has filed a claim and answer shall be referred to as a
claimant.

D. The answer shall be signed by the owner or interest holder
under penalty of false swearing and shall be in accordance with C.C.P.
Art. 1003 and shall set forth all of the following:

(1) The caption of the proceedings as set forth on the Notice of
Pending Forfeiture or petition and the name of the claimant.

(2) The address where the claimant will accept mail.

(3) The nature and extent of the claimant’s interest in the
property.

(4) The date, identity of the transferor, and the circumstances of
the claimant’s acquisition of the interest in the property.

(5) The specific provision of this Section relied on in asserting
that it is not subject to forfeiture.

(6) All essential facts supporting each assertion.

(7) The precise relief sought.

The trial court ruled that both Tina and Brittany Beers failed to properly file

claims asserting an interest in the cash as they failed to identify the date, transferor,

or circumstances surrounding her alleged acquisition of the funds. We can find no

error in this ruling based on the record before this court as it relates to Brittany

Beers. The scant information contained in the Beers’ affidavits contain only Tina

Beers’ W-2s and forms alleged to show the sales of vehicles registered in Tina

Beers’ name only. Brittany Beers has provided absolutely no information
5

whatsoever asserting any connection with any money of any kind, let alone the

amount disputed herein. That assignment of error has no merit, thus Brittany Beers

has no standing to assert a claim to the money as noted above.

Conversely, her sister does, however tenuously. Although Tina did initially

deny knowledge of the money or its origins, she clearly rescinded those claims

when she filed to recover the money. Furthermore, while the income shown in the

claim’s affidavits is roughly a quarter of the amount that was seized, it is infinitely

larger than the zero income shown on the part of Brittany Beers. Moreover, the

money was taken directly from her possession. Though her affidavits were

severely lacking, Tina Beers provided enough information that her claims should

not have been stricken. The trial court’s ruling striking her claim is hereby

reversed. The State has failed to show the existence of probable cause for

forfeiture of the money which, under La.R.S. 40:2612(G), it would have had to

show, even if no timely claim had been filed at all. Accordingly, the State is not

entitled to keep that money. The cash should be returned to Tina Beers, from

whom it was taken.

For the above reasons, the ruling of the trial court is hereby reversed. Costs

of this appeal in the amount of $1,836.60 are assessed against the State of

Louisiana.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

6

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

11-1137

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

$144,320.00 U.S. CURRENCY
TINA M. BEERS
132 WOODY LANE,
SILER CITY, NC 27344

GENOVESE, J., concurs and assigns the following reasons.

Though there was probable cause to initially issue the warrant and to seize

the property (cash), I agree with the majority that there was nothing in the record to

support a finding of probable cause for the forfeiture, as required by the statute.

The problem I have with the majority opinion is returning the money to Tina

Beers, considering the fact that she denied ownership of the money and denied

having knowledge of the presence of money in the vehicle. Additionally, Tina

Beers signed a Disclaimer of Ownership of Currency of Property wherein she

stated she was not the owner of $144,320.00; therefore, in my view, the money

should not be returned to her.