Case Name: STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SEVENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND FOURTEEN & NO/100 ($77,014.00) DOLLARS (Hui Suk Perez), Defendant-Appellant
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1992-06-29
Citations: 607 So. 2d 576
Docket Number: No. 91-282
Parties: STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SEVENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND FOURTEEN & NO/100 ($77,014.00) DOLLARS (Hui Suk Perez), Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DOUCET and YELVERTON, JJ„ and MARCANTEL , J. Pro Tern.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 607
Pages: 576–587

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SEVENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND FOURTEEN & NO/100 ($77,014.00) DOLLARS (Hui Suk Perez), Defendant-Appellant.
No. 91-282.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
June 29, 1992.
On Rehearing Nov. 6, 1992.
Rivers, Beck & Dalrymple, Kenneth A. Doggett, Chris Roy, Jr., Alexandria, for defendant-appellant.
Thomas Yeager, Asst. Dist. Atty., Alexandria, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DOUCET and YELVERTON, JJ„ and MARCANTEL , J. Pro Tern.
Honorable Bernard N. Marcantel participated in this decision by appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court as Judge Pro Tempore.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a forfeiture procedure under La.R.S. 40:2601 et seq. The State Police received information from a U.S. Customs Agent that Hui Suk Perez, a Korean National, would be arriving at Esler Regional Airport in Alexandria, and would be in possession of narcotics or a large sum of money. On January 2, 1991, Ms. Perez was picked up at the airport by her babysitter, James Carver. Carver's vehicle was stopped for "erratic driving" by Trooper Lyn Anderson. Anderson did not testify at trial. Herbert Cross, another trooper, testified as to what Anderson told him. According to Cross, Anderson asked Perez if he could search her luggage and she consented. Anderson found $22,900 in cash and two money orders for $700 in a tote bag. He found $2,814 in cash and two more $700 money orders in her wallet. She gave Anderson $36,600 in cash and 3 money orders for $700 each which had been in a pair of pantyhose tied around her waist. A drug dog was brought to the scene. It "alerted" on the tote bag. However, no drugs were found. Perez and Carver went to the Police station where they were ques tioned by Cross. Perez told Cross that she had sent Carver 14 money orders for $700 each. Cross stated that Perez and Carver consented to a search of the mail at Carver's house. A search was conducted and the money orders seized.
The State filed a notice of pending forfeiture and served Perez. Perez filed a claim for return of the property. The State filed a petition for forfeiture. After a hearing, the judge ordered the money forfeited to the State. Perez appeals.
La.R.S. 40:2601 et seq. governs forfeiture proceedings. Under those provisions, the State has the burden of proving probable cause for forfeiture. After reviewing the record, it does not appear that the State carried this burden. There was no evidence connecting the forfeited money to the drug trade, nor was there any evidence connecting Perez with the drug trade. See State v. Spooner, 520 So.2d 336 (La.1988) which deals with forfeiture under La.R.S. 32:1550. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed.
REVERSED.