8 A.3d 379
Pa. Commw. Ct.2010Background
- Collins stopped on I-81 for excessively tinted windows; vehicle owned by his sister, registered in NY; Collins is WV resident en route to NY.
- License suspended; Collins had a prior marijuana conviction; cash of $9,000 found in car ($5,000 in glove box, $4,000 in driver’s door).
- Drug dog alerted on glove box area; no drugs were found in the car; Collins claimed Paul gave cash to buy cars at auction.
- Ion scan on the cash yielded cocaine residue; Commonwealth seized the money after Paul could not be located or identified.
- Trial court granted forfeiture; Collins challenged nexus between cash and drug trafficking; Commonwealth’s evidence relied on bundling, dog alert, and ion scan.
- This Court reversed, holding the Commonwealth failed to prove a substantial nexus; ion scan readings were insufficient to prove money related to trafficking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did ion scan prove nexus between money and trafficking? | Collins argues ion scan cannot prove nexus; results could reflect residue on few bills. | Commonwealth contends ion scan, together with other facts, establishes nexus to drug activity. | Nexus not proven; ion scan insufficient as sole basis. |
| Was casual-contact level properly applied when location unknown? | Collins asserts PA casual level not applicable; money may not have circulated there. | Commonwealth argues casual level is one link in total evidence and should be considered. | Incorrect to rely on PA level; appropriate levels from NY/West Virginia should have been used. |
| Do other factors (dog alert, bundling, inconsistent explanations) alone establish nexus? | Collins contends those factors are insufficient without a reliable ion-scan basis. | Commonwealth contends combined evidence suffices to prove nexus. | No; aggregate factors do not overcome ion-scan deficiencies; nexus not proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. $11,600.00 Cash, U.S. Currency, 858 A.2d 160 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (ion scan as decisive evidence when properly shown)
- Three Hundred Ten Thousand Twenty Dollars ($310,020.00) In United States Currency, 894 A.2d 154 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (large cash, bundling, and ion scan support nexus)
- Commonwealth v. Marshall, 698 A.2d 576 (Pa. 1997) (bundling and dog alert alone insufficient; nexus must be proven at outset)
- Commonwealth v. Fontanez, 739 A.2d 152 (Pa. 1999) (drug dog alert and lack of obligation to speak cannot prove nexus)
- Commonwealth v. $2,523.48 U.S. Currency, 649 A.2d 658 (Pa. 1994) (initial nexus burden requires substantial evidence)