Court Opinion

ID: 9757138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:19:58.843582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:35.198681
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge PELLEGRINI.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding which denies Eugene McJett’s request for return of property in the form of $60,000 in currency pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. § 6801-6802, commonly known as the Controlled Substances Forfeiture Act (Forfeiture Act), because a sufficient nexus between the $60,000 and any criminal activity does not exist to make it forfeitable.
On September 4, 1998, members of the Philadelphia Police Department executed a search warrant at McJett’s residence at 5028 Marvine Street in the City of Philadelphia. During that search, ■ the police seized several items, including sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) in U.S. currency, a .9 mm handgun and a triple beam scale. The search arid seizure was conducted pursuant to a search warrant issued on that date and supported by an affidavit of probable cause given by Detective Michael J. Reynolds, a narcotics investigator employed by the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office. Alleging that there was an insufficient nexus between the cash confiscated from his home and the drug activity, which allegedly was the source of the money, McJett petitioned for return of his property. Finding that a sufficient nexus of events existed to warrant the seizure of McJett’s property, based on his possession of a large amount of a controlled substance in May 1998; an informant’s testimony that he had recently purchased cocaine from McJett, and the fact that McJett could not credibly explain where the $60,000 came from, the trial court denied McJett’s petition. Affirming the trial court, the majority concludes that the Commonwealth established by a preponderance of the evidence that a nexus between the money and drug-related criminal activity existed, and, therefore, forfeiture of the money was appropriate. I disagree.
The Forfeiture Act permits the forfeiture of money exchanged for drugs or used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6801(a)(6)(i)(A) and (B). In a forfeiture proceeding, the Commonwealth has the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a nexus between the property subject to forfeiture and an unlawful activity exists. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6802Q).1
In this case, upon execution of the search warrant, the police found a triple beam scale which Detective Reynolds identified as commonly used to weigh cbn-*113trolled substances for drug trade, one-gallon plastic bags which Detective Reynolds stated were commonly used as packaging materials in drug trade, a .9 mm handgun and $60,000. In conjunction with that evidence, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of an informant who stated that he carried on a business relationship with McJett in which McJett fronted drugs to him and testimony of a New Jersey police officer who verified that McJett had been arrested three months earlier for possession and transporting three-and-one-half kilograms of cocaine.
While I maintain no illusions about McJett, just because an individual has participated in illegal drug-related activity in the past does not necessarily mean that items located in his residence are connected to that or any other drug-related activity. What the majority has done is conclude that because property is seized as a result of a search that results in no charges, a person has to explain from where he got his money or the government can seize it, thus making it likely to increase the number of searches, because the net result is that it will become a profitable endeavor for police departments to conduct searches. If a party has liquid assets at home, or, for that matter, the home itself, those assets can be seized with testimony that in the past the party engaged in illegal activities, even if the search reveals nothing and no charges are filed. For the police, it makes it a “heads I win, tails you lose” transaction.
Because the items seized in this case are in and of themselves amenable to legal use, and the Commonwealth failed to establish any illegal use of those items, i.e., the presence of drugs or drug residue on the items or anywhere in the house or. any testimony tying those funds to a particular criminal enterprise, a sufficient nexus between the $60,000 seized and any criminal activity does not exist to make it forfeita-ble. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

. In support of its conclusion that a sufficient nexus exists, the majority cites Commonwealth, v. $32,950 U.S. Currency, 160 Pa.Cmwlth. 58, 634 A.2d 697 (1993), petition for allowance of appeal denied sub nom, Commonwealth v. Friel, 538 Pa. 637, 647 A.2d 512 (1994); and Commonwealth v. Nine Thousand Three Hundred Ten Dollars U.S.C., 162 Pa.Cmwlth. 315, 638 A.2d 480 (1994), stating that the preponderance of the evidence standard does not require the Commonwealth to produce evidence directly linking seized property to illegal activity and that drugs need not be present at the time of seizure. However, what these cases stand for is that there must be a direct link between the money and a specific drug transaction.
In $32,950 U.S. Currency, the police executed a search warrant of the petitioner's home with petitioner’s son as the subject of the warrant. As a result of the search, the police confiscated several thousand dollars worth of the drug methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. At that time, the police also arrested petitioner’s son, and after conducting a *113search of the son, recovered a key for a safe deposit box. After obtaining and executing another search warrant for the safe deposit box, the police seized $32,950.00 that was in the box. On appeal, this Court concluded that although there was no direct link between the money and any illegal activity, a sufficient nexus existed between the seized items and the illegal activity where the petitioner’s son was carrying the key to the safe deposit box at the time of his drug arrest, that some of the envelopes in which the money was kept had the name of his attorney on them, and that the money seized from the safe deposit box had a strong methamphetamine odor consistent with the smell detected at the time of the original drug raid. In that case, there was a direct link.
In Nine Thousand Three Hundred Ten Dollars U.S.C, the petitioner arrived in Philadelphia on an Air Jamaica flight. Upon questioning by the immigration officer regarding the amount of money he was carrying, the petitioner gave the officer conflicting answers. The state police detained the petitioner and questioned him regarding the money. The police then called the phone number the petitioner gave them as his home number, and identifying himself as a drug courier who was supposed to meet petitioner, told the individual on the phone that he would sell the "load” if he did not get the promised payment. After the individual told the police officer not to do that but instead to wait for "Tony,” the $9,310.00 was seized. On appeal, this Court concluded that although the petitioner did not have any drugs on him at the time the money was seized, there was a sufficient nexus between the money and the illegal activity to support the seizure where the petitioner’s travel plans, maimer in carrying and the amount of the money, and the presence of drug couriers on the same flight was consistent with a person trafficking drugs, and the phone conversation with the individual at the petitioner’s residence supported the reasonable inference that the petitioner was involved in drug trafficking on that trip. In that case, the police could at least link the money to a specific drug transaction.