Approximately $31,421.00 v. State
14-14-00385-CV
Tex. App.Dec 18, 2015Background
- Enriquez was stopped at a bus station with ~$31,421 in cash seized from his bag; officers alleged he was transporting drug proceeds from Atlanta to Mexico.
- No drugs, drug paraphernalia, or firearms were found in the bag.
- The lead officer, Arnold Alvarez, admitted he had no evidence that any drug transactions occurred (no knowledge of where, who, amounts, or that a deal happened).
- A narcotics dog alerted to the bag (not specifically to the money); the handler testified the alert only gave rise to suspicion that narcotics were or had been in/around the bag and that further testing would be needed to confirm.
- Enriquez and a co-defendant were no-billed by the grand jury; the State did not call officers before the grand jury and did not vigorously pursue criminal charges.
- The appellate panel reversed the jury’s forfeiture finding as legally insufficient; the State moved for rehearing and Enriquez filed the response summarized here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Enriquez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency to prove seized cash was proceeds of felony drug transactions | Cumulative circumstantial evidence and dog alert support inference the cash was drug proceeds | No direct or circumstantial evidence linking the cash to drug transactions; lead officer admitted no evidence a drug deal occurred | Evidence legally insufficient to show cash was contraband; panel reversal correct |
| Probative value of canine alert | Dog alert indicates narcotics odor and supports inference money was recently near drugs | Dog alerted to the bag (not money); handler said alert only raises suspicion and further testing was required; no confirmatory testing performed | Dog alert alone is minimal probative value and does not establish currency was proceeds of crime |
| Reliance on defendant’s behavior/suspicious conduct | Enriquez’s dress, travel route, nervousness, clutching bag, scanning for officers, etc., show suspicious activity consistent with courier conduct | Those behaviors are equally consistent with innocent explanations; officer conceded many behaviors are innocuous and speculative | Officer speculation and generalized “suspicious” inferences insufficient to prove nexus to criminal activity |
| Significance of grand jury no-bill and State’s prosecution conduct | Not determinative of forfeiture; circumstantial case still supports forfeiture | Grand jury no-bill and State’s failure to call officers or pursue criminal charges undermine claim that funds were criminal proceeds; Enriquez presumed innocent | Grand jury no-bill and lack of prosecution weigh against finding criminal nexus; State’s inaction underscores insufficiency of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Regal Fin. Co., Ltd. v. Tex Star Motors, Inc., 355 S.W.3d 595 (Tex. 2010) (suspicion and conjecture are not evidence)
- Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. v. Nat’l Dev. & Research Corp., 299 S.W.3d 106 (Tex. 2009) (legal standard that suspicion is not evidence)
- $43,774.00 U.S. Currency v. State, 266 S.W.3d 178 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) (dog alert alone insufficient to show currency are drug proceeds)
- $80,631.00 v. State, 861 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993) (dog alert probative limits)
- United States v. $506,231 in U.S. Currency, 125 F.3d 442 (7th Cir. 1997) (canine alert has minimal probative value)
- United States v. $252,300.00 in U.S. Currency, 484 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2007) (generalized route/destination evidence insufficient to establish nexus)
- $130,510 in U.S. Lawful Currency v. State, 266 S.W.3d 169 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) (skepticism about probative value of travel-route evidence)
- State v. $11,014.00, 820 S.W.2d 783 (Tex. 1991) (practice of rechecking currency after suitcase alert to isolate whether dog alerts to money)