One Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($137,325.00) in United States Currency v. State Ex Rel. Pelahatchie Police Department
204 So. 3d 317
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Nov. 8, 2012, Richland PD stopped a 2006 Ford 500 (registered to Darryl Bobo) for speeding; passenger Parrish Norfleet was driving.
- Officer McLendon observed indicators consistent with drug-courier activity (single key, multiple air fresheners, small overnight bag) and ran criminal-history checks showing narcotics-related records for Bobo and Norfleet.
- A certified K9 alerted to the vehicle; a concealed trunk compartment was found containing five heat-wrapped bundles totaling $137,325 and tools to access the compartment.
- The State filed a civil in rem forfeiture petition under the Mississippi Uniform Controlled Substances Law; county court granted forfeiture and the circuit court affirmed.
- Bobo appealed pro se raising four issues: ineffective assistance of counsel, unlawful extension/seizure, insufficiency of evidence for forfeiture, and that the forfeiture was an excessive fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Bobo: his private attorney rendered ineffective assistance and had conflicts/errors requiring reversal | State: civil forfeiture is a civil proceeding; no right to appointed or effective counsel in civil cases; errors alleged were trial strategy | Denied — no right to effective assistance in this civil forfeiture; record shows no conflict or reversible error |
| Unlawful extension of stop / illegal seizure | Bobo: traffic stop was unreasonably prolonged (over five hours) and property seized without proper suspicion/probable cause | State: initial stop lawful for speeding; officer developed articulable suspicion (observations + criminal-history checks) and deployed a K9; dog alerted, creating probable cause for search | Denied — stop and K9 sniff lawful; K9 alert provided probable cause to search trunk |
| Substantial-evidence for forfeiture | Bobo: money and vehicle were legitimate; insufficient evidence linking them to drug activity | State: expert testimony tied route, vehicle indicators, packaging, hidden compartment, and mileage to drug-trafficking patterns and proceeds | Denied — substantial evidence supported forfeiture under the controlled-substances forfeiture statute |
| Excessive-fine / proportionality | Bobo: forfeiture is excessive/grossly disproportionate because no drugs were found | State: nexus and proportionality satisfied given large concealed sum, compartment sophistication, and expert evidence of trafficking role | Denied — instrumentality and proportionality tests satisfied; forfeiture not grossly disproportionate |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (pretextual traffic stop standard)
- Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000) v. State ex rel. Miss. Bureau of Narcotics, 179 So. 3d 1 (Miss. 2015) (standard of review and substantial-evidence test in forfeiture)
- One (1) 1979 Ford 15V v. State ex rel. Miss. Bureau of Narcotics, 721 So. 2d 631 (Miss. 1998) (instrumentality nexus for vehicle forfeiture)
- One (1) Charter Arms, Bulldog 44 Special v. State ex rel. Moore, 721 So. 2d 620 (Miss. 1998) (forfeiture instrumentality and privacy/transport considerations)
- Evans v. City of Aberdeen, 925 So. 2d 850 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (forfeiture is penal; trier may rely on circumstantial evidence)