Richard L. Bolden v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/29/12 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2110103 R i c h a r d L. Bolden v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Houston C i r c u i t (CV-10-900533.00) Court PER CURIAM. Richard L. B o l d e n f o r f e i t u r e o f $8,265. appeals from a judgment o r d e r i n g t h e We r e v e r s e a n d remand. On O c t o b e r 17, 2010, D o t h a n P o l i c e O f f i c e r W i l l observed Bolden driving an a u t o m o b i l e . Because Kaufman Officer 2110103 Kaufman knew t h a t B o l d e n d i d n o t h a v e a v a l i d d r i v e r ' s license and Officer that Bolden had outstanding arrest Kaufman s t o p p e d B o l d e n ' s a u t o m o b i l e . warrants, O f f i c e r Kaufman a r r e s t e d B o l d e n f o r t h e o u t s t a n d i n g a r r e s t w a r r a n t s and impounded t h e automobile. When O f f i c e r Kaufman conducted an inventory s e a r c h o f t h e a u t o m o b i l e , he d i s c o v e r e d $8,265 i n c a s h i n t h e glove compartment. Upon discovering the money, Officer Kaufman c o n t a c t e d D o t h a n P o l i c e O f f i c e r J e r e m y K e n d r i c k , who handled n a r c o t i c s cases f o r the p o l i c e department. Officer K e n d r i c k q u e s t i o n e d B o l d e n c o n c e r n i n g t h e money f o u n d i n t h e vehicle. A c c o r d i n g t o O f f i c e r K e n d r i c k , B o l d e n s t a t e d t h a t he had s a v e d t h e money w h i l e w o r k i n g f o r h i s f a t h e r a n d t h a t he intended to buy Kendrick took an automobile possession suspecting that the c e l l transactions. or of with t h e money. Bolden's phone may cellular Officer telephone, c o n t a i n evidence of drug No n a r c o t i c s o r f i r e a r m s w e r e f o u n d on B o l d e n i n h i s automobile. The circuit next day, on October 18, 2010, a Houston judge i s s u e d a warrant t o s e a r c h Bolden's for evidence of i l l e g a l drug t r a n s a c t i o n s . was i s s u e d based on t h e a f f i d a v i t 2 cell County phone The s e a r c h w a r r a n t of O f f i c e r Kendrick; the 2110103 affidavit stated, i n pertinent part: "On 10-17-10 a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1330 h o u r s , I s e i z e d U n i t e d S t a t e s C u r r e n c y i n t h e amount o f e i g h t t h o u s a n d two h u n d r e d s i x t y f i v e d o l l a r s ( 8 , 2 6 5 . 0 0 ) f r o m B/M R i c h a r d B o l d e n , A.K.A. ( G a m b i n o ) . The c u r r e n c y was l o c a t e d i n t h e g l o v e c o m p a r t m e n t o f B o l d e n ' s v e h i c l e , s e p a r a t e d i n t o one t h o u s a n d d o l l a r stacks. The c u r r e n c y was h e l d b y a y e l l o w b a g , c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a D o l l a r G e n e r a l [ s h o p p i n g ] bag. I have p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e t h a t B o l d e n has s o l d i l l e g a l drugs, i n the past, to gain a p r o f i t . Affiant is l o o k i n g f o r evidence i n Bolden's c e l l u l a r telephone t h a t shows d r u g t r a n s a c t i o n s t h r o u g h t e x t and o t h e r means u s e d [ b ] y c e l l u l a r telephone, to include pictures." B o l d e n ' s c e l l phone was the search warrant. that, according contained subsequently searched pursuant to The s e a r c h r e v e a l e d s e v e r a l t e x t messages to language the testimony indicating of the Officer occurrence t r a n s a c t i o n s on t h e d a y s s h o r t l y b e f o r e B o l d e n ' s On December 27, 2010, the State Kendrick, of of drug arrest. Alabama filed a f o r f e i t u r e complaint a g a i n s t Bolden, seeking the f o r f e i t u r e of the $8,265 found i n Bolden's automobile. Bolden filed a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s e i z e d f r o m h i s c e l l phone i n the search. evidence In moving t o s u p p r e s s , Bolden argued t h a t submitted i n support of the the search warrant, i . e . , O f f i c e r K e n d r i c k ' s a f f i d a v i t , d i d not e s t a b l i s h p r o b a b l e cause to search the cell phone. At 3 a hearing on that motion, 2110103 O f f i c e r Kendrick testified t o l d t h e j u d g e who that was denied not i s s u e d the contained trial, information messages. the State seized illegal drug arrest. On affidavit. submitted transactions of the f o r f e i t u r e was the money 20, i n d i c a t i n g the on days 2011, Following the m o t i o n , he On court trial obtained court's appealed to t h i s the occurrence trial court court's through entered ordering determination illegal d e n i a l of Bolden's of Bolden's $8,265 f o u n d i n B o l d e n ' s a u t o m o b i l e . been appeal, trial s h o r t l y before the b a s e d on t h e t r i a l had information phone, i n c l u d i n g t e x t j u d g m e n t , p u r s u a n t t o § 20-2-93, A l a . Code 1975, forfeiture had t e s t i f i e d t h a t s e v e r a l of the t e x t language September The i f he a document d e t a i l i n g from Bolden's c e l l contained recall suppress. O f f i c e r Kendrick messages d i d not s e a r c h w a r r a n t any i n the Bolden's motion to At t h a t he drug a the The that sales. postjudgment court. Bolden argues t h a t the trial court erred (1) by r u l i n g a g a i n s t B o l d e n i n c e r t a i n d i s c o v e r y d i s p u t e s b e t w e e n the p a r t i e s , ( 2 ) by and admitting (4) by by d e n y i n g B o l d e n ' s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s , c e r t a i n testimony concluding that by the 4 O f f i c e r Kaufman a t evidence was (3) trial, sufficient to 2110103 s u p p o r t t h e f o r f e i t u r e o f t h e money f o u n d i n B o l d e n ' s We f i r s t a d d r e s s B o l d e n ' s a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e t r i a l vehicle. court erred by d e n y i n g h i s motion t o s u p p r e s s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s e i z e d Bolden's cell from phone. "To o b t a i n f o r f e i t u r e , t h e s t a t e must e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i e case by p r e s e n t i n g evidence t h a t c r e a t e s a reasonable s a t i s f a c t i o n that the property at issue is subject to forfeiture. Agee v . S t a t e e x . r e l G a l a n o s , 627 So. 2d 960, 962 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . A f o r f e i t u r e o f p r o p e r t y c a n n o t be p r o p e r l y b a s e d on evidence obtained i n v i o l a t i o n of fundamental constitutional rights. N i c a u d v. S t a t e , 401 So. 2d 43 ( A l a . 1981). Thus, e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d b y an i l l e g a l s e a r c h a n d s e i z u r e must be e x c l u d e d i n a f o r f e i t u r e proceeding. $4,320.00 U.S. C u r r e n c y v. S t a t e , 567 So. 2d 352 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 0 ) . " W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 674 So. 2d 5 9 1 , 593 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . "The F o u r t h Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Constitution provides, i n pertinent part, that ' [ t ] h e r i g h t o f t h e p e o p l e t o be s e c u r e i n t h e i r persons, houses, papers, and e f f e c t s , against u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h e s a n d s e i z u r e s , s h a l l n o t be v i o l a t e d , a n d no W a r r a n t s s h a l l i s s u e , b u t upon p r o b a b l e cause, s u p p o r t e d by Oath o r a f f i r m a t i o n . ' Thus, ' [ a ] s e a r c h w a r r a n t may o n l y be i s s u e d upon a showing of probable cause that evidence or i n s t r u m e n t a l i t i e s o f a c r i m e o r c o n t r a b a n d w i l l be f o u n d i n t h e p l a c e t o be s e a r c h e d . ' United States v. G e t t e l , 474 F.3d 1081, 1086 ( 8 t h C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) . M o r e o v e r , ' " [ s ] u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e must be s t a t e d i n the a f f i d a v i t t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g o f p r o b a b l e cause for issuing the search warrant," and "[t]he a f f i d a v i t must s t a t e s p e c i f i c f a c t s o r c i r c u m s t a n c e s which support a finding of probable cause[;] o t h e r w i s e t h e a f f i d a v i t i s f a u l t y and t h e w a r r a n t may n o t i s s u e . " ' Ex p a r t e P a r k e r , 858 So. 2d 941, 5 2110103 945 ( A l a . 2003) ( q u o t i n g A l f o r d v . S t a t e , 381 So. 2d 203, 205 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 7 9 ) ) . "'A p r o b a b l e c a u s e d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s made a f t e r considering the t o t a l i t y of the circumstances.' G e t t e l , 474 F.3d a t 1086. To p a s s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l m u s t e r , ' t h e f a c t s must be s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y a conclusion that the p r o p e r t y which i s the object of the s e a r c h i s p r o b a b l y on t h e p r e m i s e s t o be searched a t the time the warrant i s i s s u e d . ' U n i t e d S t a t e s v . G r e a n y , 929 F.2d 523, 524-25 ( 9 t h C i r . 1991) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . " Ex p a r t e G r e e n , 15 So. 3d 489, 492 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) . B o l d e n a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d have s u p p r e s s e d the i n f o r m a t i o n f o u n d i n h i s c e l l phone b e c a u s e , B o l d e n s a y s , t h e r e was no p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o i s s u e t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t . As n o t e d , t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t was s u p p o r t e d b y O f f i c e r K e n d r i c k ' s affidavit, w h i c h s t a t e d t h a t $8,265 i n c a s h was f o u n d i n t h e g l o v e compartment o f B o l d e n ' s v e h i c l e ; one-thousand t h a t t h e money was i n d o l l a r s t a c k s ; t h a t t h e money was i n a y e l l o w b a g c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a shopping bag; and t h a t O f f i c e r K e n d r i c k had " p e r s o n a l knowledge t h a t B o l d e n has s o l d i l l e g a l d r u g s , i n t h e past, to gain a p r o f i t . " Thus, t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t was i s s u e d based found on (1) t h e money i n Bolden's Officer K e n d r i c k ' s p e r s o n a l knowledge illegal United States Court of Appeals 6 Bolden a n d (2) drugs i n t h e p a s t . The that vehicle had sold f o r the Eleventh 2110103 C i r c u i t h a s s t a t e d t h a t "a l a r g e amount o f c u r r e n c y , i n a n d o f itself, i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h probable currency was u s e d in a illegal drug cause [ t h a t t h e transaction]." S t a t e s v. $121,100 i n U n i t e d S t a t e s C u r r e n c y , 1507 (11th C i r . 1993). However, 999 F.2d 1503, t h e $8, 265 i n t h i s c a n n o t be v i e w e d i n i s o l a t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r cause was established; rather, t o t a l i t y of the circumstances. the E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t further United i t must be viewed Ex p a r t e G r e e n . case probable i n the I n $121,100, observed: " ' [ I ] t i s t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , and n o t m e r e l y t h e ... amount o f money i n v o l v e d , t h a t g i v e s r i s e t o the f i n d i n g o f probable cause.' [United S t a t e s v. $4,255,625.39, 762 F.2d 895,] 903 n. 18 [ ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) ] . A b s e n t some e v i d e n c e c o n n e c t i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y t o i l l e g a l d r u g s even a l a r g e sum o f money, t h e r e i s no r e a s o n a b l e b a s i s f o r b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e money i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y l i n k e d t o an i l l e g a l exchange o f a c o n t r o l l e d substance. See i d . a t 903 (holding t h a t nine items of evidence, 'coupled w i t h t h e s h e e r amount o f money i n v o l v e d , ' e s t a b l i s h e d probable cause)." 999 F.2d a t 1506. Besides other evidence Kendrick's Bolden t h e money d i s c o v e r e d supporting statement has s o l d that illegal i n the vehicle, the search warrant he h a d " p e r s o n a l drugs, However, t h e f a c t t h a t B o l d e n i n the past, has s o l d i l l e g a l 7 was the only Officer knowledge for a that profit." d r u g s a t some 2110103 u n s p e c i f i e d p o i n t " i n t h e p a s t , " e v e n when c o n s i d e r e d w i t h t h e money f o u n d i n t h e v e h i c l e , does n o t e s t a b l i s h p r o b a b l e to search Bolden's timeliness. addressed evidence. phone. I n Ex p a r t e The p r o b l e m h e r e Green, supra, i s one o f o u r supreme court a s i m i l a r p r o b l e m i n d i s c u s s i n g w h e t h e r an a f f i d a v i t sworn b y D o t h a n probable cell cause cause Police to Officer search a Thomas F l a t h m a n e s t a b l i s h e d residence and shed f o r drug Our supreme c o u r t s t a t e d : "The dispute i n this case centers on t h e f o l l o w i n g three statements i n Flathman's a f f i d a v i t : (1) ' I have r e c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m a c o n f i d e n t i a l informant t h a t J e f f Green i s m a n u f a c t u r i n g and s e l l i n g methamphetamine i n s i d e o f t h e r e s i d e n c e a n d i n t h e s h e d b e s i d e o f t h e r e s i d e n c e ' ; (2) 'Dothan Swat team s n i p e r s have o b s e r v e d continuous foot t r a f f i c b e t w e e n t h e r e s i d e n c e a n d t h e s h e d ' ; a n d (3) ' [ t ] h e y have a l s o s m e l l e d a s t r o n g a c i d i c c h e m i c a l odor coming from t h e p r o p e r t y t h a t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e m a n u f a c t u r e o f methamphetamine.' To be sure, the f i r s t statement contains a verb tense that is ostensibly the present tense, i.e., 'is manufacturing and s e l l i n g . ' (Emphasis added.) However, any p r e s e n t - t e n s e a s p e c t o f t h i s p h r a s e i s q u a l i f i e d by, and s u b j e c t t o , t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y clause, ' I have r e c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i o n ' (emphasis a d d e d ) , w h i c h i n d i c a t e s an a c t i o n i n t h e p a s t . "The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s h a s e x p l a i n e d i n regard t o the phrase 'had o b s e r v e d ' that such statements i n a f f i d a v i t s evidencing past a c t i o n s are ineffective. This i s so, because t h e a l l e g e d l y i l l e g a l a c t i v i t y ' " c o u l d have b e e n any t i m e i n t h e past."' Thomas [ v . S t a t e ] , 353 So. 2d [54,] 56 [ ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 7 7 ) ] ( q u o t i n g W a l k e r v . S t a t e , 8 2110103 49 A l a . App. 7 4 1 , 743, 275 So. 2d 724, 725-26 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 7 3 ) ) . When ' " [ t ] h e i n f o r m e r [does] n o t tell the o f f i c e r - a f f i a n t the date or time he a l l e g e d l y o b s e r v e d t h e [ a c t i v i t y ] on t h e p r e m i s e s , " ' then ' " [ t ] h e r e i s n o t h i n g i n the a f f i d a v i t which h i n t s of time except t h e use of the p a s t tense i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e i n f o r m a n t ' s ... r e p o r t t o t h e a f f i a n t . " ' 353 So. 2d a t 56 ( q u o t i n g W a l k e r , 49 A l a . App. a t 743, 275 So. 2d a t 7 2 6 ) ( e m p h a s i s added). "Similarly, nothing i n Officer Flathman's a f f i d a v i t r e v e a l s when t h e t i p f r o m t h e i n f o r m a n t was r e c e i v e d o r when t h e a l l e g e d a c t i v i t y was observed. The most t h a t c a n be g a i n e d f r o m t h a t portion of the a f f i d a v i t i s that -- a t some indefinite time i n the past -- an anonymous individual a l l e g e d l y l e a r n e d o f a methamphetamine o p e r a t i o n i n v o l v i n g Green a t t h e address i n d i c a t e d on t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t . Because O f f i c e r Flathman's a f f i d a v i t c o n t a i n e d no c h r o n o l o g i c a l r e f e r e n c e i n which t o p l a c e the informant's a l l e g e d o b s e r v a t i o n o f t h e methamphetamine o p e r a t i o n , i t a f f o r d e d no b a s i s on w h i c h t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r ' t h e o b j e c t o f t h e s e a r c h [was] p r o b a b l y on t h e p r e m i s e s t o be searched a t the time the warrant [was] i s s u e d . ' [ U n i t e d S t a t e s v.] G r e a n y , 929 F.2d [523,] 525 [ ( 9 t h C i r . 1991)]. "The i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p l i e d t o O f f i c e r F l a t h m a n b y t h e 'Dothan SWAT team s n i p e r s ' i s d e f e c t i v e f o r t h e same r e a s o n s . The a f f i d a v i t p r o v i d e s no i n f o r m a t i o n as t o when t h e SWAT-team s n i p e r s were d e p l o y e d . I t r e l a t e s o n l y what t h e s n i p e r s a l l e g e d l y 'have ... o b s e r v e d ' a n d 'have ... s m e l l e d ' a t some i n d e f i n i t e time i n the past. L a c k i n g a r e l e v a n t time frame, t h e s t a t e m e n t s o f t h e s n i p e r s p r o v i d e d no b a s i s on which t o determine whether a methamphetamine o p e r a t i o n was o n g o i n g a t t h e r e s i d e n c e a t t h e t i m e t h e w a r r a n t was i s s u e d . For these reasons, the a f f i d a v i t f a i l s t o state facts or circumstances that would s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g o f p r o b a b l e cause w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k o f Thomas, Nelms [ v . S t a t e , 568 So. 2d 384 9 2110103 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) ] , a n d L e w i s [ v . S t a t e , So. 2d 758 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) ] . " Ex p a r t e G r e e n , 15 So. 3d a t 494-95. Like the a f f i d a v i t Kendrick's illegal 589 affidavit drugs t e s t i m o n y i n Ex p a r t e G r e e n , testimony stating " i n the past" was that Bolden ineffective Officer has s o l d because that t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s t h a t s u c h a c t i v i t y " ' " c o u l d have b e e n any time i n the p a s t . " ' " 15 So. 3d a t 494. This temporal weakens t h e o n l y o t h e r e v i d e n c e m e n t i o n e d the money found i n Bolden's vehicle. failure i n the a f f i d a v i t Based on t h e f a c t s r e c i t e d i n t h e a f f i d a v i t , any c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e money a n d d r u g s a l e s a t some i n d e f i n i t e t i m e i n t h e p a s t i s s p e c u l a t i v e . Further, than t h e $8,265 i n t h i s t h e money discovery of probable cause found money of case i n many is a drug i s considerably less of the cases contributing activity. $191,910 i n U n i t e d S t a t e s C u r r e n c y , Cir. 1994) (superseded on other See money i n which factor in United the finding States v. 16 F.3d 1 0 5 1 , 1072 ( 9 t h grounds by statute) ( " [ A ] l t h o u g h we have c o n s i d e r e d t h e p r e s e n c e o f a l a r g e amount o f money, when a c c o m p a n i e d b y a d d i t i o n a l factors pointing to d r u g a c t i v i t y , t o be e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e money was d r u g - r e l a t e d , we have n e v e r reached t h i s c o n c l u s i o n when t h e sum o f money 10 2110103 i n v o l v e d was as s m a l l as t h e $15-20,000.00 United S t a t e s v. One L o t o f U n i t e d $14,665, 33 F. Supp. 2d 47, 49 States involved here."); Currency (D. Mass. 1998) Totalling (stating that "[$14,665,] w h i l e not i n s u b s t a n t i a l , i s q u i t e a b i t l e s s than t h e sums o f t e n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d r u g t r a n s a c t i o n s " and supporting c a s e s ) ; and U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Funds i n t h e Amount o f $9,800, 952 F. Supp. 1254, 1262 the listing possession of $9,800 (N.D. I l l . "was not 1996) (finding that sufficiently large" to c o n s t i t u t e a b a s i s f o r an a i r p o r t s e i z u r e ) . Considering the t o t a l i t y of the l i m i t e d evidence r e c i t e d i n the a f f i d a v i t , the a f f i d a v i t d i d not e s t a b l i s h the probable cause required phone. We defective to issue note that a search "[e]ven warrant i f an f o r Bolden's affidavit ... , i t s d e f i c i e n c y may be c u r e d is cell facially by i n f o r m a t i o n an a f f i a n t supplied to the i s s u i n g a u t h o r i t y i n a d d i t i o n to the assertions 495 such i n the a f f i d a v i t . " (emphasis o m i t t e d ) . circumstance Flathman Ex p a r t e However, i s presented i n Ex p a r t e Green, Green, 15 So. 3d a t as i n Ex p a r t e i n this i n this case. case Green, no Like Officer Officer Kendrick t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t r e c a l l w h e t h e r he h a d t o l d t h e j u d g e who i s s u e d t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t any i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t was n o t i n 11 2110103 the a f f i d a v i t . Id. B e c a u s e t h e r e was i s s u e the warrant to search Bolden's no p r o b a b l e cause c e l l phone, t h e to evidence s e i z e d as a r e s u l t o f t h a t s e a r c h s h o u l d have b e e n e x c l u d e d a t the f o r f e i t u r e We next trial. consider whether the forfeiture judgment s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e o t h e r t h a n t h e e v i d e n c e s e i z e d Bolden's c e l l phone. The S t a t e sought the f o r f e i t u r e $8,265 u n d e r § 2 0 - 2 - 9 3 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975, in pertinent part, f o r the f o r f e i t u r e of is from the which p r o v i d e s , of "[a]ll moneys ... f u r n i s h e d or i n t e n d e d t o be f u r n i s h e d by any p e r s o n i n e x c h a n g e f o r a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e i n v i o l a t i o n o f any l a w o f t h i s s t a t e ; a l l p r o c e e d s t r a c e a b l e t o s u c h an e x c h a n g e ; and a l l moneys, n e g o t i a b l e i n s t r u m e n t s , and s e c u r i t i e s u s e d o r i n t e n d e d t o be u s e d t o f a c i l i t a t e any v i o l a t i o n o f any l a w o f t h i s s t a t e c o n c e r n i n g controlled substances." "The S t a t e must p r o v e t o a ' r e a s o n a b l e s a t i s f a c t i o n ' an a c t u a l l i n k b e t w e e n t h e money s o u g h t of the c o n t r o l l e d - s u b s t a n c e s laws of t h i s S t a t e . " S t a t e , 4 So. 3d 506, review of a r u l i n g e v i d e n c e was of t o be f o r f e i t e d and a v i o l a t i o n fact reversed 512 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008). Dobyne v. "On a p p e l l a t e from a f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e e d i n g a t which p r e s e n t e d ore tenus, the t r i a l a r e p r e s u m e d t o be correct and only i f i t i s c o n t r a r y to the 12 the court's findings the judgment w i l l great weight of be the 2110103 evidence." App. A t k i n s v. S t a t e , 16 So. 3d 792, 795 ( A l a . Civ. 2009). Excluding evidence the evidence that Officer found Kendrick i n Bolden's testified cell phone -¬ indicates occurrence of drug t r a n s a c t i o n s s h o r t l y b e f o r e Bolden's the arrest -- t h e r e i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a f o r f e i t u r e o f Bolden's evidence money u n d e r § 2 0 - 2 - 9 3 ( a ) ( 4 ) . submitted at t r i a l simply contained i n the a f f i d a v i t , establish probable cause The r e m a i n d e r reflects evidence of drug that the of the evidence d i d not activity. Evidence 1 i n d i c a t i n g t h a t B o l d e n h a s s o l d d r u g s a t some i n d e f i n i t e in the past coupled with even t h e d i s c o v e r y o f $8,265 time inhis v e h i c l e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e $8,265 was due to due be f o r f e i t e d . Thus, t h e j u d g m e n t f o r f e i t i n g t h e money i s t o be r e v e r s e d . B e c a u s e we a r e r e v e r s i n g t h e j u d g m e n t on t h e f o r e g o i n g g r o u n d s , we p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e o t h e r a r g u m e n t s r a i s e d by B o l d e n on a p p e a l . We r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t , a n d we remand O f f i c e r Kaufman d i d a d d one d e t a i l a t t r i a l about Bolden's a l l e g e d h i s t o r y o f drug a c t i v i t y , t e s t i f y i n g t h a t i t was h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t B o l d e n "has b e e n on f e d e r a l p r o b a t i o n f o r drug charges." 1 13 2110103 the case. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, concur. P . J . , and Pittman, Bryan, a n d Thomas, J J . , Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t 14 writing.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.