Opinion ID: 1770580
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: forfeiture: the statutory framework

Text: 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. 32:1550 which are pertinent to this case, we now turn to the facts as they were further developed in proceedings before the district court.