I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 3 - CT - 0 1 6 3 8 - S CT J AM ESEV ANS , J R.
v. CI TY O F AB ERD EEN , M I SS I SS I PPI
ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 6/ 25/ 2003 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N
. T H O M A S J. G A R D N E R , III COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: M ONROE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T : J
. D U D L E Y W I L L I A MS AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : RO BE RT H. F AUL KS NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S AF F I RMED
. T HE J UDGMENT O F T H E M O N R O E C O U N T Y C IR C U IT CO UR T I S RE VE RS E D AND R E NDE RE D - 03/ 30/ 2006 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. S M I TH, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. T h is ca se i n v o lves a civil fo rfe itu re a cti o n b yA p p ell ee , the C ityo f A b erd ee n (“C ity ”), i n t he M onr oe C ount yC i r cui tC our t . T he j udgm ent or der ed t hat $7, 600 i n cas h be for fei t ed, h o lding the C itym et i ts bu rde n o f p roo f th at t h e c a s h w a s fu rnish ed in ex ch an g e f o r a
co n tr o lle d s u b s tan ce an d /or u sed o r i n tend ed to b e u sed in v iolati o n o f th e U n ifo rm Co n t r o l l e d S u b s t a n c e s L a w.

### 2

¶2. J ames Evans , J r . ( “Evans” ) fi l ed a N ot i ce of A ppeal t o t hi s C our t . O n A pr i l 26, 2005, th e M is s is s ip p i C o u rt o f A p p e a ls re v e rs e d a n d re n d e re d d e c is io n a g a in s t th e C ity. E vans v. Cit y of A ber deen , N o. 2003- C A
- 01638- C O A , 2005 W L 949448, at *6 ( M i s s . A pp. A pr . 26, 2005)
. A s a r es ul t , t he C i t y fi l ed a mot i on forr ehea r i ng. T he C our tof A ppeal s deni ed the
m ot i on. ¶3. T he C i t ys ubm i t s t hi s Pet i t i on forW r i to f C erti o rari co n t endi ng t hatt he C our t of A p p ea ls r en d ere d a d ec isi o n in con fli ct w ith the prior de cisi o n s o f t h is C o u rtan d the C o u rt
o f App e a l s . W e re

j ect t he “cur r ency c o n t a mi n a t i o n t h e o r y ” a s a d o p t e d b yt h e Cou r t of App e a l s . I n s t e a d , we a d o p t t h e 7 Ci r c u i t Cou r t d e c i s i o n i n U n ited S tates of

A m er i ca v. th F unds in the A m ount

of T hi r t y Th ousand Si

x Hu n dr ed Seve nt

y D ol lars ( $30, 670) , 403 F. 3d 448 ( 7t h C i r . 2005)
. H ow ever , w e fi nd the “dog sni ff t es t ” conduc t ed her e w as
c o n tam in a ted , thu s im p ro p e r. W e a g re e w ith th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls’ h o ld in g th a t th e C ity f a ile d to m e e t its b u rd e n o f p ro o f th a t th e $ 7 ,6 0 0 w a s s u b je c t to f o rf e itu re . F ACT UAL BA CKGROUND ¶4. T he M i s s i s s i ppi C our t of A ppeal s s t at ed the fa cts o f t hi s cas e i n det ai l
. Fi ndi ng no need t o r es t at e t hem, w e di r ect t he r eade rt o Evans , 2 0 0 5 W L 9 4 9 4 4 8 , a t * 1 -2
. O n a p p e a l, the C o u rto f A p p ea ls r ev erse d the tri al co u rt ’s j u d g m en t ho lding that the tri al co u rt i m pr oper l yi dent i fi ed the obj ect s s ei zed f rom E v ans’ r oom as drug di s t r i but i ng and/ or
m a n u f a c tu ri n g p a ra p h e rn a lia
. Id
. at * 4
. A s su ch , the C o u rt o f A p p ea ls fo u n d the e v iden ti ary pr es um pt i on t hatcas h s eize d i n cl os e pr oxi m i t yt o drug di s t r i but i ng and/ orm anufa ctur i ng p a ra p h e rn a lia c a n b e s u b je c t to f o rf e itu re d id n o t a p p ly. Id
.

### 3 I S S UE I. W H E T H E R U N D E R M IS S . C O D E A N N . SE C T IO N 4 1 -29 -17 9 (2), T HE CI T Y P RO VE D B Y A P RE P ON DE RA NC E OF T HE E V I D E N C E T H A T T H E $ 7 , 6 0 0 F O U N D I N T H E E V A N S ’ H O ME I S S UB J EC T T O F ORF EI TU RE

S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶ 5
. T h e Co u r to f

Ap p e a l s c i t e d t h e f

o l l o wi n g s t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w: For fei tur e s t atut es ar e pena l i n natur e and mustb e st r i ct l ycons t rued. P a rc e l R e a l P ro

p e rty L o c a ted a t 3 3 5 W e st A sh S tre e t, Ja c k

so n , Miss . v. C ity of Jack s on, 6 6 4 S o .2 d 1 9 4 , 1 9 9 (M iss .1 9 9 5 ); J a ckson v

. Stat e ex rel

. Miss. B ureau of N

arcoti cs, 5 9 1 S o . 2 d 8 2 0 , 8 2 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ). In a civil fo rfe itu re c a s e , t h e q u e s tio n is w h e th e r, g iv e n a ll o f th e e v id e n c e ta k e n to g e th e r, a r at i onal t r i erof fa ctcoul d have found t hat t he funds w er e the pr oductof ort he i ns t rum ent al it i es of vi ol at i ons of t he St at e' s U ni for m C ont r ol l ed Subs t ance s L aw s. Hi ckm an v. St at e ex. r el

. Mis s . D ep't of P ubl i c Saf

et y, 592 So. 2d 44, 48 ( M i s s . 199 1 )
. Th e t r i e ro f f a c tma ya c to n c i r c u ms t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e a nd in f e re n c e s a s w e ll a s d ir e c t e v id e n c e . I d. at46. Evans , 2 0 0 5 W L 9 4 9 4 4 8 , a t * 2
. A N A L Y S IS ¶ 6
. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f o u n d th e p re su m p tio n th a t c u rre n c y f o u n d in c lo se p ro x im ity t o m anufa ctur i ng ordi s t r i but i ng par aphernal i a underM i s s . C ode A n n. s ect i on 41- 29- 1 5 3 (a )(7 ) do es not apply
. T he C i t ydo es not contes tt his fi nd i ng on app eal ; as such, t h is C o u rt w ill n o t ad d re ss th a t issu e . H o w e v e r, th e C itya rg u e s th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls im p ro p e rly
u t i l i z e d a d i v i d e - a n d
- c o n q u e ra p p r o a c h t o s p e c i f i c i t e m s o f p r o b a t i v e e v i d e n c e ; s p e c i f i c a l l y, th a t th e C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls in c o rre c tlya d o p ted a “ c u rre n c yc o n tam in a tio n th e o ry ,” im p ro p e rly d ism iss e d e x p e rt tes tim o n y b e c a u se th e C ityf a iled to q u a lifyth e e x p e rt, i m p ro p e rly d ism iss e d e v id e n c e th a t th e $ 7 ,6 0 0 w a s a larg e a m o u n t o f m o n e y f o r E v a n s to h a v e leg a lly

### 4

acc um ul at ed, and i m pr oper l yappl i ed a Fi ft h C i r cui tcas e t o s uppor ti t s deci s i on. U ndert he contr ol l i ng s t atut e, s ect i on 41- 29- 179( 2) , t he pet i t i onerm us tpr ove by a pre ponder ance of t he
e v id e n c e th a t th e p ro p e rt yis s u b je c t to f o rf e itu re . A
. C u rren cyC o n tam ination T h eo ry ¶7. T he tr i al cour tfound evi dence that a d rug d o g aler tt o a pr es ence of drugs on t he $7, 600 w as pr obat i ve i n i t s fi ndi ng t hatt he ca s h w as s ubj ectto fo rfe it u re. H ow ever , t he C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a p p lied a c u rre n c yc o n tam in a tio n th e o ryto d isc re d it th is ev id e n c e . T h is t heory hol ds : “ther e i s s om e i ndi cat i on t hatr es i due fr om nar cot i cs cont ami nat es as m uch as 96% of t he curr encycurr ent l yi n ci rcu l at i on. ” Evans , 2005 W L 949448, at*5 ( quot i ng U ni ted States . v. $5, 000. 00 in U . S. C urr ency , 4 0 F
. 3 d 8 4 6 , 8 4 9 (6th C ir
. 1 9 9 4 )). ¶8. T he C i t yar gues t he C our tof A ppeal s ’ fi ndi ng i s i m pr oper and ci t es t o t he Fi r s t , T hi r d, Seventh, E i ght h, N inth, and El eventh fede r al ci r cui t s w hi ch r ej ects uch a c ur r ency
c o n ta m in a tio n th e o ry. See F u n d s in th e A m o u n t o

f T h irty T h o u sa n d S ix Hu n dre d

S e v e n ty D ol lars ( $30, 670) , 403 F. 3d at 460 ( “W e t her efor e concl ude t hat t he empi r i cal i nfor m at i on pr ovi ded i n t hi s cas e i ndi cat es t hatdog al er t s t o curr encys hou ld b e ent i t l ed t o pr obat i ve
w e ig h t.”); U

ni ted States . v. $84, 615 in U . S. C urr ency , 3 7 9 F .3 d 4 9 6 , 5 0 2 (8th C ir
. 2004)(dog' s al er tt o curr encypr ovi des s om e- al bei ts l i ght
- i ndi cat i on t hatt he moneyw as
connec t ed t o drug t r afficki ng) ( ci t i ng U ni ted States v. $141, 770. 00 in U . S. C urr ency , 157 F. 3d 600, 604 ( 8t h C i r . 1998) ( concl udi ng t hatt he dog' s al er t t o t he s ei zed moneys uppor t ed the g o v ern m en t' s co n tention that the cu rren cy w as su b stan ti all yco n n ec ted to il lega l dru g s)); U ni ted S tates v. $242, 484. 00 , 389 F. 3d 1149, 1165- 66 ( 11t h C i r . 2004) ( decl i ni ng t o acc ept

### 5

t he curr encycont ami nat i on t heoryand di s agr eei ng w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s concl us i on t hat t he p robat i ve v al ue o f a do g aler t t o curr ency w as w eak, becau se “no on e w i t h an yexp ert i se test ifi ed in su p p o rto f [ the c lai m an t’ s] ev er-last ing sce n t, g lob al c o n ta m ination theo ry . ”); U n itedS ta tes v . S a c c o c c ia , 58 F. 3d 754, 777 ( 1s tC i r . 1 9 95) ( “Even t hough w i des pr ead
c o n t a m i n a t i o n o f

c u r r e n c y p l a i n l y l e s s e n s t h e i m p a c t o f d o g - s n i f f e v i d e n c e , a t r a i n e d d o g 's alert st il l r etains som e pro b ati v e v alue
. ”); U n itedS ta tes v . G o lb , 6 9 F
. 3 d 1 4 1 7 , 1 4 2 8 (9 C ir
. th 1995) ( hol di ng t hatt he tri al c o u rtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n admi t t i ng evi dence of
cu rren cyd o g sn iffs); U n ited S tates v. Carr , 2 5 F
. 3 d 1 1 9 4 , 1 2 0 3 (3d C ir. 1 9 9 4 )(“[W ]e
cons i dert he dog al er tevi dence as onl yanotherpi ece of evi dence t endi ng t o s how t hat[the defe ndant s ] knew t hatt he moneyi nvol ved i n t he cons pi r acyw as der i ved fr om i l l egal drug tr af fick ing
. ”). ¶9
. N eit h er th is C o u rt n o r the F ift h C ir cu it C o u rt o f A p p ea ls h as ad d resse d this issue
. It i s t her efor e fi r s ti m pr es s i on fort hi s C our t . I n F u n d s in th e A m o u n t o

f T h irty T h o u sa n d S ix Hundred Sev ent

y D ol lars ( $30, 670) , 4 0 3 F .3 d a t 4 5 5 -6 0 , th e S e v e n th C irc u it d isc u ss e d in d e tail w h e th e r d o g a ler ts to c u rre n c ya re e n tit led to a n yp ro b a tiv e w e ig h t. ¶ 1 0
. T h e re , the d e f

e n d a n t ar g u e d th a t d o g a ler ts w e re n o t en tit led to a n yp ro b a tiv e w e ig h t,
a lle g in g th a t m o s t U .S . c u rr e n c yin c ir c u l a tio n is ta in te d w ith c o c a in e . Id
. at455. I ns t ead
o f f o c u s in g o n w h e th e r m o st U .S . cu rre n c yis ta in ted w ith c o c a in e , the c o u rt tu rn e d its
a tten ti on t o w hethert he d og al ert s ar e t ri gg ered bycocaine, or fr om a coca i ne b y -pr od u c t, k n o w n a s m e th y l b e n z o a te . Id
. T he courtfound t hatbas ed on expe r t s ’ ext ens i ve r es ear ch
o n th e sc ien tific a sp e c ts o f d o g sn if

f s, th e stu d ies e s ta b lish e d to a re a so n a b le s c ien tific

### F o r a d etailedd iscu ssio no f S ev enth C ircu it’s an aly sis o f th e reliab ility

o f n arco tic 1 

### do g d et ec ti onal erts to curr ency , s ee F unds in the A m ount of T hi r t y Th ousand Si

x Hundred Sevent y D ol lars ( $30, 670) , 403 F. 3d at455- 60 

### . 6 c e rta in tyth a t m e th y l b e n z o a te, a s o p p o se d to th e c o c a in e itse lf , tri g g e r s d o g a ler ts to
c u rr e n c y . Id
. at457- 58. M or eover , t he cour t found “m ethy l benzoa t e i s hi ghl yvol at i l e and
e v a p o ra tes a t an e x p o n e n tial ra te f ro m tain ted c u rre n c y , so c u rre n c yre c e n tlye x p o se d to
c o c a i n e a n d r e tu r n e d t o g e n e r a l c i r c u l a t i o n w i l l q u i c k l y l o s e a n y d e t e c t a b l e o d o ro f m e t h yl benzoa t e, even i f t he par t i cl es of coc ai ne r emai n. ” Id
. at 458. A s s uch, t he courtfound t hat
n a rc o tic d o g s w ill a ler t to c u rre n c y “ o n ly if it h a s b e e n e x p o se d to lar g e a m o u n ts o f ill icit
c o cai ne w i t hin t he very recent past , ” t hu s m aking pr op erl y t rai ned narcot i c do g a ler ts to
c u rr e n c ye n title d to p ro b a tiv e w e ig h t. Id
. at459. ¶11. W e fi nd t he Seventh C i r cui t ’ s di s cus s ion inf o rm ati v e, l o g ical, and per s uas i ve. T h e re f o re , b a se d o n th e S e v e n th C irc u it’s i n d e p th a n a ly sis o f th e re liab ili tyo f

d o g a ler ts to
c u rre n c y , w e a d o p t th e S e v e n th C irc u it’s so u n d re a so n in g a n d f in d in g th a t d o g a ler ts to 1
cu rren cyare en ti tl ed to p rob ati v e w eigh t. L ikew ise, w e a lso rev erse the C o u rto f A p p ea l’ s fi nd i ng t hat the cu rr encycon t am i nati on t heo ryprecl ud es evi den ce o f a d o g a l ertun l ess
c o u p le d w ith o th e r p e rs u a s iv e e v id e n c e . ¶12. H ow ever , al tho u g h w e fin d d o g sn iffs are en ti tl ed t o pr obat i ve w ei ght , t he ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng t he dog s ni ff i n t he cas e at bar pr es ent s t he i s s ue of w hethert he C i t y conduct ed a pr oper dog- s ni ff t es t on t he curr ency . O ffi cer Per ki ns t es t i fi ed t hatp r i or t o t he t es t , he pl ac ed the moneyi n a br ow n paperbag w hi ch he f ound l y i ng i n t he pol i ce
s t at i ons ’ bas ement . H e al s o admi t t ed the bag may have been c ont ami nat ed, and he w as not

### 7

s ur e w hethert he dog hi ton the p ap er b ag oron t he money
. L i kew i s e, O ffi cerPer ki ns admi t t ed the t es t i ng ar ea may have been cont ami nat ed, and thatt he dog coul d have a l er t ed t o t he ar ea w her e he pl ace d t he bag i ns t ead of t o t he moneyi t s el f. I ti s es s ent i al t hata pr oper testb e a d m inist ere d
. W e c an n o t so f ind in the ca se a t bar. B
. E xper tT es t i m ony ¶1 3
. T he C i tyar g u es th e C o u rto f A p p ea ls i m p rop erlyd ism issed O ff i cerPerki ns ’ t es t i m ony
w hen m aking i t s deci si on , fi nd i ng t hat the C ity f a iled t o q uali fyhim as an ex pertw i t ness d u ring t ri al
. T his C ou rtrepeat edlyhas held t hat i n o rdert o p res erve err or for ap p e llate
r evi ew , a cont empora neous obj ect i on m us tbe made, and i f no obj ect i on i s m ade, t he
a p p e lla n t w a iv e s th e e rr o r. Ma lla rdv . S ta te , 7 9 8 S o . 2 d 5 3 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ); S m ith v . S ta te , 5 3 0 S o . 2 d 1 5 5 , 1 6 1 -62 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). B ec au se E v an s m ad e n o o b jecti o n at th e tri al co u rt l evel t o t he C i ty ’s f

ail ur e t o qual i fyt hei rw i t nes s , E vans w ai ved the i s s ue. T he C our tof A ppeal s, therefor e, i m pr oper l yexcl uded O ffi cerPer ki n’ s t es t i m onyfr om i t s deci s i on
c o n c e rn in g th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s s u rr o u n d in g th e ite m s f o u n d in E v a n s ’ r o o m . C
. $7, 600 ¶ 1 4
. T h e C ity a rg u e s th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls im p ro p e rly h e ld th e $ 7 ,6 0 0 w a s n o t su b jec t to f o rf e itu re b e c a u s e d ir e c t e v id e n c e o f d ru g a c tiv ity d id n o t e x is t. Evans , 2005 W L 949448, at*5. T he C i t y ar gues t hatdi r ectevi dence i s notr equi r ed; i ns t ead, t he tr i erof fa ctm ayt ake in to c o n s id e ra tio n c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e a s w e ll a s d ir e c t e v id e n c e . See H ick m a n v . S ta te , 5 9 2 S o . 2 d 4 4 , 4 5 (M iss 1 9 9 1 ). S p ec ifi ca ll y , the C ityarg u es u n d er Jacks on a l ar ge amount

### 8

o f c a s h , wi t houtanycr edi bl e expl anat i on, s houl d be cons i der ed pr obat i ve as evi dence of drug t r aff i cki ng. ¶15. I n Ja cks o n v . S ta te , 5 9 1 S o. 2d 820, 822- 23 ( M i s s . 1991) , t hi s C our tuphel d a for fei tur e of $1, 087 w her e author i t i es caug h tt he def endanti n a s t i ng oper at i on w i t h fake
coca i ne and t he $1, 087 on hi s per s on. I n r eac hi ng our deci s i on, t hi s C our t ci t ed t o U ni ted State s v . Thr e e Hundr e d Si xt y - FourThous and

N ine Hundr e d Si

xt y D ol lars in U

. S. C urr ency , 6 6 1 F
. 2 d 3 1 9 (5th C ir
. U n it B 1 9 8 1 ) (he reina fter “ $364, 960 ")
. T her e, author i t i es found $364, 960 in ca sh alon g w i t h coca i ne, has hi s h, guns , a s cal e, and fi ve gl as s i ne bags
c o n ta in in g c o c a in e re s id u e . Id
. at324. T he F i ft h C i r cui thel d “[f ] r om t he s heerquant i t yof
cu rren cyseize d u n d er thes e ci r cum s t ances , a co u rt m a y p e rm iss ib ly in f e r a c o n n e c tio n w ith i l l egal nar cot i cs t r aff

i cki ng. ” Id
. (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶16. I n t he cas e at b ar, p o li ce o ff ic er s found $7, 600 of curr ency w r apped i n hai rbands
un derneath a con sol e t el evis i on i n E van s’ bed room . F urt herm ore, t he p oli ce fo un d a b ras s
c o n tain e r c o n tain in g a b rillo p a d , as h e s, a n d re sid u e ; a p iec e o f tin f o il w ith h o les in it; a ci garet t e pack w i t h resi du e; and so m e p l ast i c bag s. O ffi cer Perki ns t est i fi ed thatt he b ras s cont ai ner w as “us ed t o m ake [ a] cr ack pi pe or[w as ] bei ng us ed t o m ake a cr ack pi pe. ”; t hat t he t i n foi l w i t h hol es i n i t “w oul d i ndi cat e s om ebodyha[d] been us i ng t hatt o s m oke cr ack
c o c a in e w ith .” ; a n d th a t th e p la s tic b a g s “ in d ic a te [ d ] t h e tr a n s p o r t o r s to ra g e o f d ru g s .” H ow ever , E vans t es t i fi ed t hathe us ed the br as s cont ai nerand t i n foi l notfori l l egal drug us e, buti ns t ead a s as ht r ay s fors m oki ng ci gar s . A s t o t he plasti c bags t he off i cer s found i n a d ra w e r, E v a n s te stif

ied h is ro o m se rv e d a s a g u e st a n d sto ra g e ro o m b e f o re h e o c c u p ied it,

### 9

becau se al on g w i t h the pl ast i c bag s w ere s crew dri vers, pictures, and recor ds i n ot her draw ers . M or e i m por t ant l y , w e not e the o ff icer s di d notfi nd drugs i n E vans ’ hom e, nordi d t he offi cer s s end the br as s cont ai ner , t i n foi l , and ci gar et t e pac k r es i due t o a cr i m e l ab fordrug t es t i ng. T her efor e, t her e i s no evi dence w hat s oeverof t he pr es ence of i l l egal drugs i n any for m i ncl udi ng r es i due. ¶17. B ase d on t he fa ct s i n t he ca s e atbar , appl y i ng bot h Ja c ks on and $364, 960 , w e fi nd the C our tof A ppeal s w as corr ecti n det er m i ni ng t hatt he tr i al cour tcannoti nfert hatt he $ 7 ,6 0 0 se ize d in c o n n e c tio n w ith a b ra ss c o n tain e r, a b rillo p a d , b u rn t ti n f o il, a n d a c ig a re tte pack, w i t houtm or e, w as connec t ed w i t h i l l egal nar cot i cs t r aff i cki ng. D
. U ni t ed Stat es v. $38, 600. 00 i n U
. S. C ur r ency ¶18. T he C our tof A ppeal s ci t ed U ni ted S tates v. $38, 600. 00 in U . S. C urr ency , 784 F. 2d 6 9 4 (5th C ir
. 1 9 8 6 ) (he reina fter “ $38, 600. 00 ") i n su p p o rto f it s d ec isi o n to d en yfo rfe itu re of t he $7, 600. I n $38, 600. 00 , b o rde r p atrol ag en ts fo u n d a b lue b ag loca ted o n the d ri v er’s back s eatcont ai ni ng a pi pe bear i ng m ar i j uana r es i due, ci gar et t e r ol l i ng paper s , s ci s s or s , and
a s m a ll m e ta l b o x . Id . at 6 9 6 . T h e a g e n ts a lso f o u n d $ 3 8 ,6 0 0 in c a sh c o n c e a led u n d e rn e a th th e b a c k s e a t. Id
. T h e ag en ts s ei zed the moneyaft err ece i vi ng evas i ve ans w er s fr om t he d ri v e r a s to h is d e s tin a tio n a n d th e m o n e y ’s o w n e r. Id
. at 696- 97. T he Fi ft h C i r cui thel d t he
m oneyw as nots ubj ectt o for fei tur e. T he Fi ft h C i r cui ts t at ed: T h e r e s e e m s l i t t l e q u e s t i o n t h a tt h i s e v i d e n c e , w h e n c o n s i d e r e d c o l l e c t i v e l y, gi ves r i s e t o a s t r ong s us pi ci on, perhaps even pr obabl e ca us e, of s o me i l l egal ac t i v i t y . I t i s n o t q u i t e s o a p p a r e n t , h o wev e r , t h a t t h e s e f a c t s g i v e r i s e t o a rea so n ab le b eli ef

, su p p o rt ed b ym o re tha n m ere su sp ici o n , that [th e d ri v er]

### 10

f u r n i s h e d , i n t e n d e d t o f u r n i s h , o rh a d r e c e i v e d t h e m o n e y i n ex c h a n g e f or dr ugs . I d. at 69 8 (em p h asis in o ri g inal). ¶19. A gai n, t hi s C our t has hel d t hat i n det er m i ni ng w hetherfor fei tur e i s appr opr i at e, t he ques t i on becomes w hether“gi ven al l of t he evi dence cons i der ed t ogether , a r at i onal t r i erof fac tm ayhave f

ound bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hat[t he] funds w er e the pr oduct of or i ns t rum ent al i t i es of vi ol at i ons of t hi s s t at e’ s contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s act . ” H i ckm an , 592 S o .2 d a t 4 8
. See al

s o § 4 1 -29 -17 9 (2). ¶20. T he C i t yar gues i t pr es ent ed evi dence exce edi ng t he evi dence found i n $38, 600. 00
. T he C i t ypoi nt s to s ever al fac t or s , i ncl udi ng t hati t s confi dent i al i nfor m ant , w ho pr ovi ded tr u e an d v al uabl e i nfor m at i on i n t he pas tw hi ch l ed t o t he arr es tof drug deal er s , r epor t ed E vans and hi s fr i end B l ancha r d w er e st or i ng cr ack coca i ne at t he Evans’ hom e; t hatE vans fai l ed t o pr oper l y pr ovi de concl us i ve evi dence of l egal s our ces of t he $7, 600 found undert he
cons ol e t el evi s i on i n hi s bedr oom ; and the conduc tof the Evans’ fami l yfol l ow i ng t he s ear ch (i n stal lat ion o f a sec u ri tysy stem in the E v an s’ ho m e, rem o v al of E v an s fro m the h o m e). ¶21. H ow ever , w e poi nt out t he pol i ce depart m ent ’ s fai l ur e t o conduct a pr operdog- s ni ff t est , t he co nfli ct i ng evidence as t o the use of the brass con t ai ner and t i n fo i l , t he fai l ure t o tes t t he r es i due found i n t he ci gar et t e pac k and the b ras s cont ai nert o det er m i ne w hethers uch
r es i due w as an i l l egal s ubs t ance , t he confl i ct i ng evi dence as t o t he s our ce of t he $7, 600 cas h, and t h at th e pol i ce ne verfound drugs i n t he Evans’ hom e. C ons i der i ng t he ci r cumst ance s
as a w hol e, t hi s C our tfi nds t he C i t ydi d not m eet i t s bur den pr ovi ng by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence t hatt he $7, 600 i s s ubj ectt o for fei tur e.

### 11 CO NC L US I ON ¶22. W e agr ee w i t h t he C our tof A ppeal s ’ fi ndi ng t hatt he C i t ydi d notm eeti t s bur den of pr ovi ng bya pr eponder ance of t he evi dence t hatt he $7, 600 found i n E vans ’ hom e w as
s ubj ectt o for fei tur e. H ow ever , w e r ej ectt he C our tof A ppeal s ’ fi ndi ng t hatt he curr ency cont ami nat i on t heorypr ecl udes evi dence of a dog a l er tunl es s coupl ed w i t h ot her p e rsu a siv e e v id e n c e . In ste a d , w e a d o p t th e S e v e n th C irc u it’s f in d in g th a t d o g a ler ts to
curr encyar e ent i t l ed t o pr obat i ve w ei ght
. T her efor e, t he j udgm entof t he C our tof A ppeal s i s aff

i r m ed and the j udgm entof t he M onr oe C ount yC i r cui tC our ti s r ever s ed and
r ender ed. ¶23. T HE J UD GMEN T OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S AF F I RMED . T HE J UDG M ENT OF THE M ON RO E COU NTY CI RCU I T COU RT I S REVERSED AND RE NDE RE D.
W A L L E R A N D C O B B , P .J J ., E A S L E Y , C A R L S O N A N D D I C K I N S O N , J J ., CONCUR. GRAVE S , J . , CONCURS I N P ART AND DI S S EN TS I N P ART W I T HOU T S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON . DI AZ AN D R AN DO L P H, J J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .