Summary
The Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed a summary judgment forfeiting $12,039 seized from Delancey R. Kent in connection with alleged drug-trafficking activity. The court held that Kent failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for preserving an interest in seized property because he did not adequately identify the date, transferor, and circumstances of acquiring the money. The court also declined to consider new evidence and constitutional arguments raised for the first time on appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the State in the civil forfeiture proceeding based on Kent's failure to satisfy the statutory requirements for preserving an interest in seized property.
- Whether Kent's newly submitted documents and arguments concerning the State's burden, the constitutionality of the seizure, the Eighth Amendment, and COVID-related employment circumstances could be considered for the first time on appeal.
- Whether Kent's general assertions that the money came from odd jobs, stimulus payments, and retirement funds adequately established that the currency was not subject to forfeiture.
Holdings
- A claimant's failure to specify the date, identity of the transferor, and circumstances of acquiring the property, as required by La. R.S. 40:2610(B)(4), is fatal to the claim and precludes further participation in the forfeiture proceeding.
- Summary judgment was proper because the record showed no genuine issue of material fact and the State was entitled to judgment as a matter of law after Kent failed to establish a legally sufficient claim to the seized currency.
- The State need not trace forfeited property to a particular drug transaction or prove a specific transaction; probable cause may be established by the totality of the circumstances.
- The appellate court would not consider evidence attached to Kent's brief that was not part of the trial court record or issues not raised in the pleadings or presented to the trial court.
Key quotations
“The failure of a claimant to specify the date, identity of the transferor, and the circumstances of the claimant’s acquisition of the interest in the property is fatal to the claim.” (8-9)
“Probable cause for forfeiture is satisfied when the totality of the facts and circumstances provides reasonable ground for believing the property in question is connected to illegal drug trafficking.” (7)
“Finally, appellate courts will not consider issues that were not raised in the pleadings, were not addressed by the trial court, or are raised for the first time on appeal.” (10)
Factual background
Following a traffic-stop pursuit, officers observed Kent discard a bag later found to contain methamphetamine. After Kent consented to a vehicle search, officers found $12,039 on the front seat; the State alleged the amount was consistent with proceeds from street-level narcotics sales. Kent gave differing accounts of the money's source and later claimed it came from odd jobs, stimulus payments, and retirement funds. Despite discovery opportunities and a trial court order, Kent did not identify the dates, transferors, or circumstances of acquiring the money.
Procedural history
The State obtained a warrant for seizure for forfeiture of $12,039 found in Kent's vehicle and later filed a petition for forfeiture. After Kent failed to provide discovery identifying the dates, transferors, and circumstances surrounding his acquisition of the money, the trial court barred him from introducing additional evidence concerning its source. The trial court granted the State summary judgment and authorized it to proceed with an order of forfeiture. The court of appeal affirmed.