$27,877.00 Current Money of the United States
331 S.W.3d 110
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- Roberts appealing a seizure under Texas forfeiture statutes (art. 59.01-.14) arising from cash found at Roberts's brother's Denton County residence.
- Initial narcotics search at Malone address yielded Alprazolam, hydrocodone, marijuana, and cash; Roberts arrested.
- Canine sniff searches at Freeman (Savoldi's) and Archer (Roberts's parents' house) locations led to further seizures; Bosko alerted on the Archer money.
- Notice of seizure filed; trial court found the $23,020 to be proceeds of illegal drug trafficking and forfeited to State.
- Issues on appeal include jurisdiction for Archer search, sufficiency of the evidence, admissibility of expert testimony, and Eighth Amendment challenge.
- Texas Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's judgment in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Archer search jurisdiction valid? | Roberts argues Archer search outside Carrollton limits and jurisdiction is citywide only. | State contends home-rule officers have countywide authority to execute valid warrants; Britt remains good law. | Archer search lawful; countywide jurisdiction for home-rule officers affirmed. |
| Evidence sufficiency for forfeiture? | Roberts contends evidence insufficient to show substantial connection to drug activity. | State shows a nexus via concealment, canine alerts, and Roberts's conduct and statements. | Evidence is factually and legally sufficient to support forfeiture. |
| Admissibility of Officer Sanchez as expert | Roberts contends State failed to disclose mental impressions and bases; improper expert designation. | State provided disclosures and underlying affidavit; no surprise or prejudice; testimony within declared scope. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; disclosure adequate and cross-examination possible. |
| Excessive fine under Eighth Amendment? | Roberts asserts forfeiture of $23,020 is an excessive fine. | Forfeiture remedial, targeted at drug traffickers; amount proportionate given offense severity. | Forfeiture not grossly disproportionate; not unconstitutional under current analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- $11,014.00 v. State, 820 S.W.2d 784 (Tex. 1991) (establishes substantial connection standard for forfeiture evidence)
- Five Thousand Five Hundred Dollars in U.S. Currency v. State, 296 S.W.3d 696 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2009) (circumstantial evidence suffices to show nexus to illicit activity)
- Britt v. State, 768 S.W.2d 514 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1989) (Arlington police jurisdiction previously held countywide)
- Brother v. State, 85 S.W.3d 377 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002) (jurisdiction for police officers; 1995 amendments examined)
- Kurtz v. State, 152 S.W.3d 72 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (arrests without warrants; discusses jurisdiction changes)
- Garza v. Alviar, 395 S.W.2d 821 (Tex. 1965) (standard for reviewing evidence sufficiency in trials)
- VingCard, A.S. v. Merrimac Hospitality Sys., Inc., 59 S.W.3d 847 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001) (automatic exclusion for failure to disclose expert mental impressions)
- United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1998) (excessive-fines analysis for forfeitures)