Marmet Drug Task Force v. Paz
2012 Ohio 4882
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Paz was stopped for inoperative taillights; odor of marijuana detected; Paz and Fraker have drug-trafficking histories; Paz had cash and marijuana on/person during pat-down; Petitioner sought forfeiture of $4,450 under R.C. 2981.05; trial court forfeiture order reversed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Petitioner proved the money was proceeds of drug trafficking | Paz (Petitioner) argued nexus shown by history, marijuana, and cash denominations | Paz argued no sufficient nexus; past history insufficient; money not tied to drugs | Yes; insufficient evidence to prove forfeiture by preponderance |
| Whether Petitioner was a proper party petitioner to bring forfeiture action | Petitioner claimed proper under R.C. 2981.05(A) | Paz argued Petitioner not a political subdivision and thus improper | Waived, but Petitioner ultimately not a proper party petitioner under statute |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jones, 2009-Ohio-670 (9th Dist. 2009) (court considered cash and location evidence in forfeiture)
- State v. Ali, 1997-Ohio-? (119 Ohio App.3d 766) (8th Dist. 1997) (small amount of drugs with cash insufficient for forfeiture)
- Balwanz v. Balwanz, 2004-Ohio-1534 (7th Dist. 2004) (distinctions where Balwanz involved controlled packaging; not similar here)
- Owens v. State, 2007-Ohio-49 (9th Dist. 2007) (denied forfeiture where cash not shown to be drug transaction proceeds)
- $765 in United States Currency, 2009-Ohio-711 (5th Dist. 2009) (personal use drugs; cash alone not enough)
- Dayton Police Dept. v. Byrd, 2010-Ohio-4529 (2d Dist. 2010) (waiver and standing considerations in forfeiture)
- Dayton Police Dept. v. Grigsby, 2010-Ohio-2504 (2d Dist. 2010) (standing/party status in forfeiture action)