Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Norman J. SPOONER
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1988-01-18
Citations: 520 So. 2d 336
Docket Number: No. 87-KK-0892
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Norman J. SPOONER.
Judges: LEMMON, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 520
Pages: 336–371

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Norman J. SPOONER.
No. 87-KK-0892.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Jan. 18, 1988.
Opinion Assigning Additional Reasons Feb. 4, 1988.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 11, 1988.
John M. Crochet, Public Defender’s Office, Lake Charles, for relator.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Richard Ieyoub, Dist. Atty., Saundra M. Isaac, and Elizabeth S. McCall, Asst. Dist. Attorneys, for respondent.

Opinion:
CALOGERO, Justice.
After Norman Spooner pled guilty to possession of controlled dangerous substances that were found during a search of his vehicle by state police, the state sought a court order forfeiting Spooner's ownership of the vehicle and cash money found on his person at the time of his arrest. Applying the provisions of La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 32:1550 (West Supp.1987), the trial court ordered forfeiture of the vehicle and the money. In so ruling, the trial court expressly relied on La.R.S. 32:1550(A)(7)(c), which provides that money seized in close proximity to illegal controlled substances shall be presumed to be forfeitable contraband unless the owner thereof proves otherwise by clear and convincing evidence. After the court of appeal affirmed the trial court's forfeiture order, we granted Spooner's application to consider the ruling of the courts below.
Today we hold that the statutory presumption embodied in La.R.S. 32:1550(A)(7)(c) is invalid because it infringes upon due process rights and property interests protected by the Louisiana constitution. We also find that the provision which requires the claimant to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the money is not contraband violates due process protections afforded by the United States Constitution. Therefore, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and the court of appeal insofar as they allowed the forfeiture of currency which was found on defendant's person at the time he was arrested for possession of controlled dangerous substances, and remand the case for a new trial so that the state may have the opportunity to prove, without the benefit of the presumption, that the currency is contraband. However, we affirm the judgments of the courts below to the extent that they allowed the forfeiture of the vehicle operated by defendant at the time of his arrest, because we find that the state sufficiently proved that the vehicle is for-feitable contraband within the meaning of La.R.S. 32:1550(A)(5) and R.S. 1550(C)(3).
The central issue presented by this case is whether the property owner may be required to prove at a forfeiture proceeding that money found on his person at the time of his arrest is not contraband. After reviewing pertinent provisions of the state constitution and our holding in State v. Manuel, 426 So.2d 140 (La.1983), we conclude that the property owner cannot be required to disprove a presumption that his property is contraband. Instead, the state must bear the burden of proving that the seized property is contraband.
In so holding we do not reach the additional issue raised by the parties as to whether the state must prove the grounds supporting forfeiture beyond a reasonable doubt. There is divided sentiment among the members of this Court as to whether the state should be required to prove the grounds for forfeiture beyond a reasonable doubt, or whether it should be allowed to utilize a less exacting standard, such as proof by clear and convincing evidence or by simply a preponderance of the evidence. For reasons more fully delineated below, we conclude that this case does not present the appropriate vehicle for the resolution of that issue.
Because we affirm the trial court's ruling that the state proved the grounds for forfeiture of the automobile beyond a reasonable doubt, we need not consider here whether proof under a lesser standard would have been sufficient. Similarly, because the state failed to provide any evidence that the seized currency was contraband, we are not called upon to decide whether, hypothetically, the state could have satisfied its evidentiary burden on this issue by proof short of the reasonable doubt standard. Instead, we focus herein on the threshold question of which party must bear the burden of proof in a forfeiture proceeding, and in the process we take the opportunity to expound upon the important constitutional considerations which apply to this area of law.
(I) FACTS
While on routine patrol on 1-10 near Lake Charles, State Trooper Scott Havens observed a 1980 Toyota Célica with an expired California license plate. After learning by radio that the vehicle was registered to one Frank Spooner, the trooper signaled its driver to pull over to the side of the roadway and stop. The driver complied, and stepped out of his vehicle. Trooper Havens approached and inquired as to his identity.
The driver did not profess to be the owner of the vehicle. He identified himself as Ernest Narcisse, produced a California driver's license in that name, and told the officer that the car was owned by Frank Spooner. "Narcisse" claimed that he was driving the car to California as a favor to Spooner, who resided in that state. Trooper Havens became suspicious when the driver could furnish neither the car's registration papers nor an address or phone number at which Spooner could be reached in California. He requested permission to search the vehicle, and after obtaining the driver's written consent, he radioed for assistance. Another state trooper arrived on the scene and the search of the vehicle began.
During the course of the search, the officers discovered two sets of scales, on which there was a residue of cocaine, and assorted pills, some of which were controlled dangerous substances. The driver was advised of his Miranda rights and placed under arrest. Confronted with a second driver's license discovered in the interior of the car, the driver admitted that his name was indeed Frank Spooner and that he was the owner of the automobile. Approximately $1,400 in cash was discovered in Spooner's back pocket during the pat-down that followed his arrest.
Spooner subsequently pled guilty to four counts of possession of controlled dangerous substances. Thereafter, the state filed a petition under R.S. 32:1550 seeking forfeiture of the cash and automobile.
(II) FORFEITURE: THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
Before discussing and analyzing the actions of the courts below, it is helpful to review at the outset the provisions of the controlled dangerous substances forfeiture statute which are at issue in this case. La.R.S. 32:1550(A) provides that certain property "shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture" if that property is used to facilitate the transportation, sale, possession or manufacture of controlled dangerous substances. The statute classifies property that is used for such an illicit purpose as "contraband."
It is important for the purpose of statutory construction to distinguish between the two generic categories of property which may be classified as "contraband." Items, the possession of which is intrinsically illegal, such as illegal narcotics, are categorized as contraband per se. Things which are subject to forfeiture because they are the immediate instrument of a crime, but the possession of which is not intrinsically illegal, such as automobiles, guns and currency, are considered derivative contraband. See State v. Manuel, 426 So.2d 140, 144 (La.1983). While this generic distinction is not made when the word "contraband" is used in R.S. 32:1550, for purposes of clarity we refer to these terms hereafter whenever necessary to distinguish between these items (contraband per se and property which may be considered derivative contraband).
In order to obtain the forfeiture of any type of derivative contraband, the statute requires a showing that "the value of the contraband was in excess of five hundred dollars or that the contraband was intended for commercial sale." La.R.S. 32:1550(C)(3). The state must also prove that the seizure was constitutional, or was based upon reasonable grounds for the investigating officer to believe that the seizure was constitutional. R.S. 32:1550(C)(1).
With respect to the forefiture of an automobile or any other type of conveyance, the state must also show that the owner was "knowingly and intentionally" a consenting party or privy to a violation of the state's drug laws. § 1550(C)(2). Further, it must be demonstrated pursuant to § 1550(A)(5) that the vehicle was used or intended to be used to transport or in any manner facilitate the transporting, sale, receipt, possession, manufacture, compounding, dispensation or concealment of illegally acquired controlled dangerous substances.
Money which is seized incident to the enforcement of the state's drug laws may also be subject to forfeiture. § 1550(A)(3) classifies as contraband all cash used to facilitate the transportation, sale, manufacture and possession of controlled dangerous substances. § 1550(A)(7)(a) further provides that anything of value furnished or acquired in exchange for a controlled dangerous substance, including all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, is considered forfeitable contraband. Finally, § 32:1550(A)(7)(c) provides that currency seized in close proximity to illegal drugs or paraphernalia is presumptively contraband:
There shall be a rebuttable presumption that all moneys, coin, and currency seized incident to a valid arrest and found in close proximity to contraband controlled dangerous substances or contraband manufacturing or distributing paraphernalia or records of the illegal importation, manufacture, or distribution of controlled dangerous substances, are contraband as defined herein. The burden of proof shall be upon claimants of such property to rebut this presumption by clear and convincing evidence.
Having reviewed the provisions of La.R. S. 32:1560 which are pertinent to this case, we now turn to the facts as they were further developed in proceedings before the district court.
(Ill) THE FORFEITURE HEARING
At the forfeiture hearing, the state attempted to prove, among other things, that the illegal contraband seized from Spoon-er's vehicle either exceeded $500 in value or was intended for commercial sale. The following evidence was presented regarding the nature and amount of the illegal items found in Spooner's vehicle.
The state's first witness, Trooper Havens, recounted the events leading up to the search, as set forth in the first section of this opinion. He further testified that he searched the trunk of the vehicle, while Trooper Shields, the other officer who had arrived on the scene, searched the interior of the car. According to Havens, the trunk was filled with clothes and assorted items. He spotted a small black bag, similar to a shaving kit. Unzipping it, Havens observed a jar with a screw-on top and a plastic bottle, resembling those in which Tylenol is sold. Inside the jar Havens found "one or two clear plastic baggies of white crystalline powder," numerous very small ziplock bags and two razor blades. Regarding the powder in the jar, Spooner told Havens, "That ain't coke, man, that's cut." Recognizing "cut" as a term describing a substance used to dilute cocaine for resale, Havens advised Spooner of his Miranda rights and continued the search.
Inside the Tylenol bottle, Havens found "numerous assorted pills and capsules," some of which he recognized as Tylenol-3, a prescription drug. Shields identified other pills as being controlled substances. When asked if he had prescriptions for those pills, Spooner answered in the negative, explaining that the pills had come "from street deals." Further search of the trunk turned up ledger books, two sets of scales, and additional items recognizable as drug paraphernalia (a screen, crusher and grinder). Trooper Havens completed his testimony by identifying the state's exhibits as those seized from Spooner's car at the time of the stop and arrest.
The state's next witness was State Trooper Jerome Segur, who was qualified as an expert in narcotics investigation. As supervisor of general narcotics investigations in the six-parish Southwest District, Sgt. Segur described how the screen, crusher and grinder found with the scales could be used to reduce high-grade rock cocaine into powder. Once granulated, Se-gur explained, cocaine is diluted with "cut," such as the Manitol powder found in Spoon-er's trunk, to reduce the purity of the drug for street transactions. Once granulated and diluted, the cocaine is weighed and placed in plastic baggies, ready for sale. It was Segur's opinion that ordinary buyers would have no need for scales and the paraphernalia, nor, in his view, would it be "typical" for a mere consumer to have the number of small plastic bags found in Spooner's car.
Segur also testified as to the laboratory test results run on the substances found in Spooner's car. Cocaine residue was found on the scales. The Tylenol bottle contained a variety of barbiturates, including valium, marijuana and codeine. In Segur's view, it was entirely consistent for a dealer to have a variety of these "downers" on hand for customers to ingest prior to taking cocaine, which is an "upper."
With respect to the ledgers, Segur found them to contain a list of detailed expenditures, as well as names and telephone numbers next to drugs such as preludin and methadone, a heroin substitute. This also suggested to Segur that the officers had found a drug distributor rather than a mere consumer.
Segar conceded that if each item were viewed in isolation, the paraphernalia and drugs could be explained away, or at least explained as contraband intended for personal consumption. However, when the "totality of the circumstances" was considered, it was Segur's opinion that Spoon-er was a cocaine dealer. Segur ended his direct testimony by saying there would be "[n]o problem" in selling the controlled substances, scales and paraphernalia for $500.
Under cross-examination, Sgt. Segur admitted the items could sell for less than $500, "[depending on the market" and repeated that the cocaine residue was not a "saleable quantity." The witness pointed out, however, that the scales alone could, under some circumstances, sell for "two or three hundred dollars." Defense counsel elicited from Segur a street value for the 4½ pills of valium ($20 each), for the 5V2 Tylenol-3 pills ($15 each), for the 6V2 marijuana cigarettes found ($5 — $7 each) and manitol "cut" ($60).
At the conclusion of Sgt. Segur's testimony, the state rested. The defense called no witnesses, but a joint stipulation was entered to the effect that Norman Spooner, Sr., defendant's father, would have testified that he gave his son $1,500 two days prior to the date that defendant left New Orleans to go to California. According to the stipulation, which was accepted by the court, the money was collected from defendant's relatives in order "for him [defendant] to go to California."
(IV) DISPOSITION BY THE DISTRICT COURT
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge ordered forfeiture of the automobile and the money, and assigned oral reasons in support of his decision. With respect to the general requirements for forfeiture, the judge ruled that "the state has carried its burden of proving that the seizure was constitutional," and "carried its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the contraband was intended for commercial sale." Regarding the automobile, the judge concluded that the state had also proven that "the owner of the vehicle knowingly and intentionally used this vehicle in the transportation of the contraband and for the use and facilitation of the commercial sale of the C.D.S. [controlled dangerous substances]/'
With regard to the currency, the trial judge found that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the cash was used or intended to be used to facilitate the transportation, sale or possession of contraband. However, he held that the state was nonetheless entitled to obtain forfeiture of the money because the defendant failed to rebut the presumption found in R.S. 32:1550(A)(7)(c) by clear and convincing evidence.
(V) DISPOSITION BY THE COURT OF APPEAL
Following the entry of the forfeiture order by the trial court, the defendant timely filed an application for supervisory writs to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal. Rejecting the defendant's argument that the presumption contained in § 1550(A)(7)(c) is invalid, the appellate court concluded that a forfeiture action is a civil remedial proceeding and that therefore the statutory presumption is "permissive and constitutional." Conceding that this Court characterized forfeiture proceedings as "quasi-criminal" in State v. Manuel, 426 So.2d 140 (La.1983), and that "in Manuel . there is language to the effect that in forfeiture proceedings the State must prove each element of its case beyond a reasonable doubt," the court of appeal nonetheless posited that "a close reading" of Manuel "indicates that such statements were dictum as the proceeding under review was a pre-trial proceeding_" 505 So.2d at 233.
Rather than relying on Manuel, the Third Circuit turned to a number of federal court of appeals and district court decisions which addressed the burden of proof issue under federal forfeiture statutes. Those cases tend to characterize forfeiture proceedings as more civil in nature than criminal, and they sanction shifting the burden of proof to the defendant under certain circumstances.
The court of appeal here also rejected defendant's argument that the state failed to prove that the value of the contraband exceeded $500 or was intended for commercial sale. Noting that the evidence taken at the forfeiture hearing indicated that Spooner was selling drugs for profit, the court of appeal was unable to label as erroneous the trial judge's finding that the contraband was intended for commercial sale.
(VI) THE COMMERCIAL SALE REQUIREMENT
In his assignments of error to this Court, Spooner re-urges the two arguments rejected by the court of appeal: (1) that R.S. 32:1550(A)(7)(c) unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof to the defendant, and (2) that the state failed to sufficiently prove that the contraband was valued in excess of $500 or was intended for commercial sale. We consider the latter issue first, because proof that the contraband exceeded $500 or was intended for commercial sale is a prerequisite to the forfeiture of any derivative contraband, while the issue of R.S. 32:1550(A)(7)(c)'s constitutionality pertains strictly to whether the forfeiture of the currency should be upheld.
La.R.S. 32:1550(C)(3) expressly provides the state with the option of proving that the value of the contraband exceeded $500 or that the contraband was intended for commercial sale. The state's evidence that the controlled dangerous substances were intended for commercial sale was competent and unrebutted. Sgt. Segur testified that the paraphernalia, ledgers, number of baggies, cocaine residue on the scales and variety of "downers" present all were factors typical of a drug dealer's operation, factors which demonstrate that the controlled dangerous substances found in the vehicle were intended for commercial sale. We find this evidence persuasive, as did the courts below, and thus cannot say that the trial judge erred by concluding that "the state has carried its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the contraband was intended for commercial sale."
The trial court expressly found that the state met its burden of proof on this issue under the highest proof standard possible ("beyond a reasonable doubt"). Because we agree with that aspect of the trial court's ruling, we need not consider here the state's contention that it may satisfy the proof requirements of R.S. 32:1550(C)(3) under an evidentiary burden less rigorous than the reasonable doubt standard.
(VII) FORFEITURE OF THE AUTOMOBILE
Having established that illegal contraband intended for commercial sale was found in defendant's vehicle, the state easily met the remaining elements of proof necessary to allow forfeiture of the automobile. It is clear that Spooner's vehicle was used to transport controlled dangerous substances in the manner specified by R.S. 32:1550(A)(5). The evidence also leaves no room to doubt that Spooner "knowingly and intentionally" possessed and transported controlled substances, as required by § 1550(C)(2).
We agree with the trial court that the state proved all statutory elements necessary to obtain forfeiture of the vehicle. However, we must now turn to the issue which prompted our writ grant in this case, i.e., the conclusion of the lower courts that the $1,400 must be forfeited because the defendant did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the money was not derivative contraband.
(VIII) FORFEITURE OF THE CURRENCY
La.R.S. 32:1550(A)(7)(c) creates a "rebut-table presumption" that all currency "seized incident to a valid arrest and found in close proximity to . controlled dangerous substances or . manufacturing or distributing paraphernalia" is contraband. In other words, based on the location of the money at the time of the arrest, the presumption arises that it was used to facilitate the trafficking or sale of illegal drugs. The presumption may only be rebutted if the defendant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that this is not true. Thus, the statute places the burden on the defendant to show that the money was not used in any manner to facilitate a violation of the state's drug laws. In considering the defendant's argument that § 1550(A)(7)(c) is unconstitutional, we will now examine two prior decisions of this Court which addressed the constitutional requirements that apply to forfeiture proceedings.
(A) State v. Manuel and State v. 1980 Green GMC Van
La.R.S. 32:1550 is modeled on the forfeiture provisions of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, § 505, 9 U.L.A. 191 (1979), and was enacted by the Legislature in 1981. The statutory presumption contained in § 1550(A)(7)(c) was added by amendment in 1983. Although we have not previously had before us the issue of the presumption's validity, we did give extensive consideration to the purpose, constitutionality and allowable scope of forfeiture proceedings in State v. Manuel, 426 So.2d 140 (La.1983).
In Manuel, the state instituted proceedings under 32:1550 in an attempt to obtain the forfeiture of two vehicles seized as contraband. The defendant moved for a release of his vehicles on the grounds that the forfeiture statute was unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion. After granting defendant's application for a review of that ruling, we held that the statute was constitutional and in the process set down certain guidelines for assessing the constitutionality of forfeiture proceedings.
At the outset, we noted that a forfeiture proceeding is essentially criminal in nature because its primary purpose "is to penalize for the commission of an offense against the law." 426 So.2d at 143. Thus, we held that any statutory scheme allowing forfeiture is constitutional if "it permits the taking of property for forfeiture purposes subject to the same preconditions required for a seizure of criminal evidence." Id. at 146. We further held that property may be constitutionally forfeited if the state proves the grounds for forfeiture at the evidentia-ry hearing. Id. at 147. With regard to the case then before us, in which there had not yet been a hearing at the time of our decision, we observed that "[a]t trial of the forfeiture proceeding, of course, the state must prove each element of its case beyond a reasonable doubt because forfeiture proceedings are quasi-criminal." Id. at 148.
Manuel also made clear that a forfeiture provision will not pass constitutional scrutiny if it infringes upon the "far reaching protections" which the 1974 Louisiana Constitution extends to the right to own and control private property. We discussed therein the extensive limitations which Article I, Section 4 of the Louisiana Constitution places on the state's right to forfeit, take or regulate private property. Article I, Section 4 provides in pertinent part that:
Every person has the right to acquire, own, control, use, enjoy, protect and dispose of private property. This right is subject to reasonable statutory restrictions and the reasonable exercise of the police power.
Property shall not be taken or damaged by the state or its political subdivisions except for public purposes and with just compensation paid to the owner or into court for his benefit.... Personal effects, other than contraband, shall never be taken.
(Emphasis added)
This constitutional language led us to conclude in Manuel that a forfeiture statute does not infringe upon protected property rights if it requires the state to prove that the alleged contraband was used "as an immediate instrument of a crime." 426 So.2d at 145. We also noted that review on this issue under the federal constitution is less exacting than Louisiana constitutional inspection because of the different, more detailed safeguards for property rights contained in our state charter. Id. at 147.
Our ultimate holding in Manuel was that the statutory provisions which the state relied on in its efforts to forfeit defendant's vehicle were not unconstitutional on their face and would not be unconstitutional in application as long as certain prerequisites were met. Among those prerequisites was the requirement that the state prove that the property sought to be forfeited was derivative contraband, i.e., property used as the immediate instrument of a crime. Our conclusion in Manuel that forfeiture proceedings must be tailored to avoid infringement upon constitutional due process and private property rights was not dicta, as the court of appeal opined; to the contrary, that conclusion was one of the premises upon which our opinion was based.
Nor did Manuel represent a departure from our holdings in prior cases that involved forfeiture. As we noted in State v. 1971 Green GMC Van, 354 So.2d 479, 484 (La.1977), "Louisiana law has traditionally looked with disfavor upon forfeitures." The conclusion that forfeiture is essentially punitive was critical to our ruling in Green Van that the controlled substances forfeiture statute then in existence (the predecessor of R.S. 32:1550) was constitutionally deficient on due process grounds. That statute allowed confiscation of vehicles without any requirement that the vehicle owner "knew of the illegal [drug] possession, had consented to it, or had any connection with it at all." 354 So.2d at 485.
In Green Van, we independently concluded that the forfeiture statute unlawfully infringed upon the protection of private property extended by Article 1, Section 4 of the Louisiana Constitution. Because the statute allowed property to be forfeited without a showing that the owner thereof knew about or in any way consented to the illegal conduct, we found that it was "an unreasonable restriction on the right to property guaranteed by Article I, section 4 of the Louisiana Constitution." Id. at 486.
(B) Constitutionality of La.R.S. 32:1550(A)(7)(c)
In light of our holdings in Manuel and Green Van, the court of appeal was wrong as a matter of law when it concluded that La.R.S. 32:1550 "establishes a civil remedial proceeding...." The appellate court passed too quickly over Manuel in its effort to derive a rule of law from federal jurisprudence. Instead, it should have an alyzed the statutory presumption in the context of the due process protections that must be extended to the defendant in a quasi-criminal proceeding. Also, the court of appeal did not consider whether the presumption infringes upon the far reaching protections afforded to private property rights by the Louisiana Constitution. We now consider both of those areas of constitutional protection.
(1) Due Process Considerations
Article 1, Section 2 of the Louisiana Constitution provides that "[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, except by due process of law." A forfeiture proceeding is by nature an attempt to deprive the defendant of his property as a punishment. While we need not attempt to delineate in this opinion the full range of process which is due to the defendant in a forfeiture proceeding, we hold that the property owner is entitled to a presumption of innocence similar to that to which the accused is entitled in any criminal case. The burden of proving that the defendant's property is derivative contraband must be on the state.
Article 1, Section 16 of the state constitution contains an explicit requirement with respect to the presumption of innocence: "Every person charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty...." This statement incorporates both the presumption of innocence and the requirement that the state has the burden of proving the defendant's guilt, thereby constitutionalizing two principles that have long been basic assumptions of criminal procedure and due process. See Hargrave, Declaration of Rights, 35 La.L.Rev. 1, 52 (1974). See also In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 15 S.Ct. 394, 39 L.Ed. 481 (1895); State v. Hagan, 49 La.Ann. 1625, 22 So. 832 (1897); La.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 804 (West 1981); La.Rev.Stat.Ann. 15:271 (West 1981). Thus, if the state seeks to take a person's private property without compensation because it allegedly has been used as an instrumentality of a crime, the state must prove the property's alleged relationship with the crime.
La.R.S. 32:1550(A)(7)(c) impermis-sibly relieves the state of its burden of proving that seized currency has been used as an instrumentality of a crime. In order to be entitled to the presumption that the money was used as an instrumentality of a crime, the state, under this statute, could rest its case on the issue after simply demonstrating that the seized currency was found "in close proximity" to illegal contraband. Such an evidentiary presumption is clearly invalid under the established rule of criminal law that mandatory presumptions may be sustained only if the prosecution can demonstrate that the presumed fact necessarily flows from the proven fact upon which it is made to depend. State v. Searle, 339 So.2d 1194, 1205 (La.1976). The fact that this defendant was found to have $1,400 in cash in his pocket at the time illegal drugs were discovered in the trunk of the car he had been driving (the proven fact) does not in and of itself demonstrate that the money was in any way connected with the drugs (the presumed fact). Proximity of the cash to the illegal substances is one factor which the state may rely on to prove that the money was used as an instrumentality of a crime. But while proximity may in some cases give rise to the inference that currency is derivative contraband, it cannot mandate a presumption that the money is contraband. There are too many other reasonable possibilities which could account for the presence of the cash — such as this defendant's assertion that he received the money from his father for the purpose of taking a trip.
The statute's requirement that the claimant disprove the presumption by clear and convincing evidence is particularly onerous. While the burden of proof on the question of whether the money is derivative contraband should not be imposed on the claimant under any circumstances, imposition of a "clear and convincing" burden on the claimant would in many cases result in a de facto irretratable presumption of guilt. Proof of a negative, such as innocence, is always difficult, but the "clear and convincing" burden requires the property owner to prove that the negative is highly probable. Imposing such a burden on the defendant in a quasi-criminal action goes far beyond the limitations of due process.
We also find that placing the burden of proof on the claimant under a "clear and convincing evidence" standard violates due process guarantees provided by the United States Constitution. As discussed in the cases cited by the court of appeal, the federal approach allows the burden of persuasion to shift to the claimant upon an initial government showing of probable cause to institute the proceeding. See e.g., United States v. $55,518.05 in United States Currency, 728 F.2d 192 (3rd Cir.1984); United States v. $2,500 in United States Currency, 689 F.2d 10 (2d Cir.1982). However, these cases do not suggest that the burden may be imposed on the property owner to rebut the presumption of guilt by clear and convincing evidence. None of the federal forfeiture statutes go so far, and we believe that Louisiana's statute violates federal due process standards when it attempts to place this burden on the claimant.
In Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), the United States Supreme Court specified three factors which should be considered in any assessment of whether a challenged government deprivation complies with the dictates of federal due process:
(1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action;
(2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of that interest through the procedures employed by the government; and
(3) The government's interest in employing the challenged procedure, including the function of the procedure and the burdens that a substitute procedure would entail.
424 U.S. at 334-35, 96 S.Ct. at 903.
Applying Mathews to the challenged procedure, we find that there is a significant risk under the current statute that currency will be forfeited even though it is not derivative contraband. That risk outweighs the utility which the presumption provides to the state by easing its burden of proof at the forfeiture hearing.
As the court of appeal noted, the presumption takes into account the fact that in some cases, the state may encounter "difficulty in proving the origin of monies seized in connection with narcotic arrests...." 505 So.2d at 287. There is, however, a critical difference between a statutory mechanism which eases the state's burden of proof and one which effectively eliminates that burden altogether. Even in light of the shifting evidentiary standard of proof that has been upheld by federal circuit courts, we do not believe that a forfeiture statute which requires the claimant to prove by clear and convincing evidence that his money is not derivative contraband survives constitutional scrutiny under Mathews. For reasons discussed elsewhere in the opinion, we do not determine herein the state's burden of proof in the absence of the presumption. We simply hold that the requirement that the defendant rebut the presumption violates due process protections afforded by the state constitution, and that the additional requirement that the defendant rebut the presumption by "clear and convincing evidence" violates federal due process protections.
(2) Private Property Rights
We independently determine that § 1550(A)(7)(c) infringes upon the "far reaching" protections afforded to private property owners by the Louisiana Constitution. As we noted in Manuel and Green Van, any forfeiture procedure must comply with the protections extended by Article I, Section 4 of the 1974 Constitution.
The basic right protected is the right to own and enjoy private property. Forfeiture of contraband per se is not an infringement on that right because an individual can have no ownership interest in items that are intrinsically illegal. Forfeiture of derivative contraband — items which are not intrinsically illegal but which are used as the immediate instrument of a crime — also does not infringe on a protected interest because the right to own property "is subject to reasonable statutory restrictions and the reasonable exercise of the police power." Art. I, § 4. However, because forfeiture of derivative contraband by the state is an exception to the basic right of an individual to own private property, the state necessarily must bear the burden of proving that the property in question qualifies as derivative contraband. As noted by the spokesman for the Declaration of Rights Committee at the 1973 Louisiana Constitutional Convention:
the purpose of this language [Article I, Section 4's allowance for "reasonable statutory restrictions and the reasonable exercise of police power"] is to limit . the exercise of the police power to a standard of "reasonableness." Moreover, since the rule is protection of property rights and the exception is regulation of those rights, the burden of proof must shift from the owner to its regulator. In other words, it is not the duty of the property owner to demonstrate that a given regulatory scheme is wholly arbitrary; instead it is the responsibility of the state to show its reasonableness.
XII Constitutional Convention of 1973, Verbatim Transcripts, 6, 20-21; Jenkins, The Declaration of Rights, 21 Loy.L.Rev. 9, 20 (1975) (Emphasis added). See also Hargrave, Declaration of Rights, 35 La.L.Rev. 1, 12 (1974).
Article I, Section 4 expressly mandates that "[pjersonal effects, other than contraband, can never be taken." (Emphasis added). Once again, it should be the state's burden to prove the exception to the rule — that the personal effects in question were used as an immediate instrument of a crime and therefore are forfeitable. Any statutory provision which purports to relieve the state of that burden is not a "reasonable" statutory restriction or exercise of police power. La.R.S. 32:1550(A)(7)(c) is unconstitutional because it relieves the state of the burden of proving that seized currency is derivative contraband.
(IX) DISPOSITION
Having concluded that the presumption contained in § 1550(A)(7)(c) is unconstitutional, we must next consider whether, apart from the presumption, the state proved that the currency was forfei-table contraband. Unquestionably, it did not. The only evidence which the state offered with regard to the money was that it was found in the defendant's back pocket. Further, the amount of cash which the defendant had in his possession ($1,400) was not so inordinately high as to be considered unusual or suspect, particularly for a person engaged in a cross country trip.
In fact, the only evidence in the record regarding the source of the money came in the form of a joint stipulation that the defendant's father gave him $1,500 two days before defendant left New Orleans to go to California, for use on the trip. Thus the evidence which was offered at the hearing on the origin of the money indicated that the $1,400 was not derivative contraband.
We agree with the trial judge that the state did not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the money was derivative contraband, but we take the matter a step further. The state did not prove that the money was derivative contraband under any standard of proof; certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt, also not by clear and convincing evidence, and not even by a preponderance of the evidence. We accordingly reverse the judgments of the courts below insofar as they allowed the forfeiture of the currency, and remand the case for a new trial on the issue of whether the seized currency is forfeitable contraband. Upon re-trial, the state will bear the burden of proving, apart from the presumption, that the money is derivative contraband. As previously noted, we affirm the forfeiture of the vehicle, and thus all proceedings on remand should pertain only to the seized currency.
Our decision that La.R.S. 32:1550(A)(7)(c) is unconstitutional does not affect any other provisions of the forfeiture statute. § 1550(A)(7)(c) is severable from the statute because it is independent from the remainder thereof, "and not so interwined with it as to raise the presumption that the legislature would not have enacted the statute without this provision." State v. 1971 Green GMC Van, 354 So.2d at 487; Roy v. Edwards, 294 So.2d 507 (La.1974). Forfeiture of currency remains permissible, but the state must prove that the currency is derivative contraband.
DECREE
For the reasons assigned, we affirm those portions of the judgments of the courts below which allow forfeiture of Spooner's vehicle. We reverse those por tions of the trial and appellate court judgments which allow forfeiture of the money found in Spooner's possession at the time of his arrest, and remand for a new trial on the issue of whether the currency is derivative contrabandt
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
LEMMON, J., concurs.
COLE, J., concurs in the result and assigns reasons.
MARCUS, J., concurs for reasons assigned by COLE, J.
WATSON, J., concurs but notes that he agrees with COLE, J., that the standard of proof should be a preponderance of the evidence.
. 505 So.2d 230 (La.App. 3d Cir.1987)
. 507 So.2d 221 (La.1987)
. The defendant argues that because a forfeiture proceeding is quasi-criminal in nature, the beyond a reasonable doubt standard should apply. The state contends that since a forfeiture proceeding is not entirely criminal in nature and has certain civil characteristics, it should not be required to prove the grounds for forfeiture beyond a reasonable doubt.
. The provisions of the forfeiture statute which are pertinent to this case provide as follows:
1550. Forfeitures
A. The following are contraband and shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture, and all property rights in the following are forfeited:
(1) All controlled dangerous substances which have been produced, manufactured, distributed, dispensed, or acquired in violation of the provisions of Chapter 4 of Title 40 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950.
(2) All raw materials, products, and equipment of any kind which are used, or intended for use, in producing, manufacturing, dispensing, compounding processing, importing, or exporting any controlled dangerous substances in violation of the provisions of Chap ter 4 of Title 40 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950.
(3) All cash which is used, or intended for use, to facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, production, manufacture, compounding, dispensation, concealment, importing, or exporting of property described in Paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Subsection.
(5) All conveyances or movable property, including aircraft, vehicles, or vessels, which are used, or intended for use, to transport or in any manner to facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, manufacture, compounding, dispensation, or concealment of property described in Paragraphs (1) and (2) hereof, except that:
(a)No conveyance or movable property used by any person as a common carrier in the transaction of business as a common carrier shall be seized or forfeited under the provisions of this Part, unless it appears that the owner or other person in charge of such conveyance was knowingly a consenting party or privy to a violation of Chapter 4 of Title 40 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950.
(7)(a) Anything of value furnished, intended to be furnished, or acquired in exchange for a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of Chapter 4 of Title 40 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, including but not limited to, all proceeds of property traceable to such an exchange and all moneys, negotiable instruments, property, and securities used, or intended to be used, to facilitate such violation or acquired from the proceeds of such violation.
(b) No property shall be forfeited hereunder to the extent of the interest of an owner or security interest holder by reason of any act or omission established by him to have been committed or omitted without his knowledge or consent.
(c) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that all moneys, coin, and currency seized incident to a valid arrest and found in close proximity to contraband controlled dangerous substances or contraband manufacturing or distributing paraphernalia or records of the illegal importation, manufacture, or distribution of controlled dangerous substances, are contraband as defined herein. The burden of proof shall he upon claimants of such property to rebut this presumption by clear and convincing evidence.
C. Except as provided in Paragraph (4) of this Subsection, property seized under this Chapter shall he forfeited in a hearing instituted by the district attorney upon:
(1) A showing by the district attorney that the seizure was constitutional or that the seizure was made upon reasonable grounds to believe the seizure was constitutional; and
(2) A showing by the district attorney that the owner of the conveyance was knowingly and intentionally a consenting party or privy to a violation of Chapter 4 of Title 40 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950.
(3) A showing by the district attorney that the value of the contraband was in excess of five hundred dollars or that the contraband was intended for commercial sale.
. The state was also required to demonstrate that the seizure of the alleged contraband was constitutional. We agree with the trial court's finding that the state demonstrated that there was probable cause for the initial detainment of Spooner's vehicle, that the search was undertaken pursuant to a valid written consent and that probable cause existed for the subsequent arrest, pat down search of Spooner and seizure of items found in his vehicle and on his person. We note that the defendant does not raise the issue of the constitutionality of the search or seizure on appeal.
. More will be said regarding the federal jurisprudence in our discussion below of whether R.S. 32:1550(A)(7)(c) withstands scrutiny under the due process clause of the United States Constitution.
. A review of the forfeiture provisions employed by the forty-eight states which have adopted statutes similar to § 505 of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act indicates that Louisiana's imposition of a clear and convincing burden against the claimant constitutes a virtual statutory anamoly. Only Kentucky has adopted a similar provision. Ky.Rev.Stat. § 218A.410(j) (Supp.1986). The remaining forty-six jurisdictions vary in their approach to the issue, but most place the burden on the government to prove the grounds for the forfeiture of any type of derivative contraband, either by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, see, e.g., Cal.Health & Safety Code § 11488.4(i)(1) (West Supp.1987); 1983 Volkswagen v. County of Washoe, 101 Nev. 222, 699 P.2d 108 (1985) (citing Manuel); Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 63, § 2-506(G) (West Supp.1987) (as to forfeiture of vehicles); or by clear and convincing evidence, see, e.g., New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Law § 1311(b) (McKinney Supp.1987); Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 63, § 2-503(B) (West Supp.1987) (as to forfeiture of money); or by a preponderance of the evidence, see, e.g., Ala.Code § 20-2-93 (1984); Idaho Code § 37-2744(d) (Supp.1987); Maine Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 22 § 2387 (West 1980 & 1986 Supp.). Other states follow the federal procedure in which the burden of persuasion shifts upon an initial showing of probable cause. See, e.g., Ariz.Rev. Stat.Ann. § 13-4311(H) (West Supp.1986). Still other jurisdictions have adopted presumptions which impute contraband status to money seized in close proximity to illegal drugs, see, e.g., Ark.Stat.Ann. 82-2629 (Supp.1985); Ill.Ann.Stat. ch. 56½ § 1505 (Smith-Hurd Supp.1987), but these states have not gone so far as to require the claimant to rebut the presumption by clear and convincing evidence.
. Because we hold that the due process and private property protections embodied in the Louisiana Constitution forbid any approach which would relieve the state of the burden of proving the grounds which support forfeiture, we do not follow the federal approach, which essentially places the burden of proof on the claimant after a minimal showing by the government. We do note that several commentators have roundly criticized the federal statute on constitutional grounds for shifting the burden of persuasion upon an initial government showing of probable cause. See Note, Due Process Implications of Shifting the Burden of Proof in Forfeiture Proceedings Arising Out of Illegal Drug Transactions, 1984 Duke L.J. 822 (1984). See also, Note, RICO Post-Indictment Restraining Orders: The Due Process of Defendants, 60 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 1162, 1181-86 (1985) (discussing similar provision in Criminal RICO statute); Reed, Criminal Forfeiture Under the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984: Raising the Stakes, 22 Am.Crim.Rev. 747, 756-60 (1984); Reed & Gill, RICO Forfeitures, Forfeitable "Interests," And Procedural Due Process, 62 N.C.L. Rev. 57, 87-91 (1983).
. At no time has the United States Supreme Court expressly upheld those provisions under federal forfeiture law which shift the burden of persuasion onto the claimant. See D. Smith, Prosecution and Defense of Forfeiture Cases, § 11.03(8) (1987). Certainly, the United States Supreme Court has never approved of the shifting of a clear and convincing burden to a claimant as attempted by the statute in the present case.
. Because the state, at the forfeiture hearing, failed to offer proof by even a preponderance of the evidence that the currency was derivative contraband, this opinion does not reach the question of whether the state must prove that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The state must offer evidence which satisfies at least one of the recognizable proof standards (i.e., proof by a preponderance of the evidence; proof by clear and convincing evidence) before we can pass on the issue of whether proof which falls short of the reasonable doubt standard but which satis-fíes a lower proof standard will suffice in a forfeiture hearing. The author of this opinion subscribes to the position taken by Manuel, which is that the state must prove the grounds for forfeiture beyond a reasonable doubt. However, as noted at the outset of the opinion, the members of this Court are divided on the question of the precise burden of proof which should be imposed upon the state, and the facts of this case do not require the resolution of that issue at this time.