Opinion ID: 1770580
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: disposition by the district court

Text: 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.