Opinion
No. 3-300 / 02-1353.
Filed July 23, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Grundy County, Bruce B. Zager, Judge.
Respondent appeals forfeiture of monies seized pursuant to Iowa Code section 809A.12(10) (2001). AFFIRMED.
Frank Santiago of Santiago Law Practice, Iowa City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget Chambers, Assistant Attorney General, and Bradley Harris, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vogel, JJ.
Pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 809A, the State seized certain property belonging to Steven R. Young, including a bank account with a balance of $13,237.89 and cash in the amount of $3,890. On appeal, Young claims the State failed to show a nexus between the seized monies and his admitted underlying drug dealing. We affirm.
Background Facts. In August 2001, Young received $61,219 from life insurance proceeds after his mother's death. On October 16, 2001, Young was arrested on charges unrelated to this appeal. Young's brother, Randy Mechtel-Young, posted bond for Young in the amount of $16,750. Upon release, Young repaid his brother the full amount. On April 10, 2002, Black Hawk County returned the cash bond of $16,750 to Randy and, having already been repaid, Randy endorsed the check over to Young. A week later, On April 17, Young deposited $16,750 in a Union Planters Bank account. On April 23, Young was arrested and later he was indicted in federal court on drug trafficking charges. Young appeals from the order of forfeiture.
Scope of Review. Review of forfeiture proceedings is for correction of errors at law. In re Property Seized from Mary Patrick, 562 N.W.2d 192, 194 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). The evidence is examined in the light most favorable to the district court judgment, and the findings are construed liberally to support the district court's decision. In re Property Seized from Chiodo, 555 N.W.2d 412, 414 (Iowa 1996). The conclusions of the trial court must be supported by substantial evidence which does not, however, denote some elevated quantity of proof. See State v. Anderson, 517 N.W.2d 208, 211 (Iowa 1994). Rather, the relevant question is whether, after viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements. Id. Discussion. Young argues there was not sufficient evidence to establish a substantial connection between the cash seized and Young's criminal conduct of selling methamphetamine. Young asserts the money seized was part of an inheritance and not the proceeds of his drug trafficking involvement. The State contends there was sufficient evidence to establish the connection needed between the property seized and the criminal offense.
Iowa Code section 809A.3 states the conduct that may give rise to forfeiture:
1. An act or omission which is a public offense and which is a serious or aggravated misdemeanor or felony.
. . .
3. An act or omission committed in furtherance of any act or omission described in subsection 1, which is a serious or aggravated misdemeanor or felony, including any inchoate or preparatory offense.
Iowa Code § 809A.3 (2001). There is no question that Young's conduct gave rise to the forfeiture, only what property should be included in such forfeiture. Forfeiture "requires a substantial connection between the seized property and the underlying criminal offense." Patrick, 562, N.W.2d at 194 (citation omitted). The forfeiture in the present case was ordered pursuant to section 809A.12(10):
Subject to the exemptions contained in section 809A.5, a presumption arises that any property of a person is subject to forfeiture under this chapter if the state establishes any of the following:
a. The person has engaged in conduct giving rise to forfeiture.
b. The property was acquired by the person during that period of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture or within a reasonable time after that period.
c. No likely source for acquisition of the property exists other than the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture.
Iowa Code § 809A.12(10) (emphasis added).
The district court found that all monies seized arising out of his arrest were related to Young's drug trafficking based on the large amounts of money passing through Young's hands as a result of his admitted drug trafficking, and the $3,890 found together with a bag of marijuana in his coat pocket coupled with Young's failure to provide a paper trail for his claimed inheritance monies.
Exemption argument waived. On appeal, Young claims the money seized was legitimate proceeds exempted from forfeiture pursuant to Iowa Code section 809A.5(1)(a). While his inheritance was discussed generally in the district court ruling, the issue of exemption was never raised nor ruled on and is therefore waived. See Metz v. Amoco Oil Co., 581 N.W.2d 597, 600 (Iowa 1998); Conner v. State, 362 N.W.2d 449, 457 (Iowa 1985). Even if this issue were preserved, we find no merit in his claim, as the paper trail from the inheritance is poor and would not support Young's position.
Nexus between drug activity and the cash. At the forfeiture hearing, Officer Dolleslager and Young both testified as to the enormous amounts of cash that passed through Young's hands from December 2001 or January 2002 to April 2002. Officer Dolleslager testified Young told him he had sold about thirty pounds of methamphetamine at $1,000 per ounce during the four month period. From those numbers, Officer Dolleslager estimated Young grossed about $240,000. In addition, $80,800 was still owed to Young at the time of his arrest as evidenced by a notebook found in his possession indicating client debts. Young's testimony was similar, although he claimed somewhat smaller gross sales. The district court found and we agree, there is substantial and uncontroverted evidence that between $170,000 and $300,000 passed through Young's hands from his drug sales from December 2001 to April 2002.
Young did not open the Union Planters bank account from which $13,237.89 was seized until January 2002, when he claims he began selling methamphetamine. At the hearing, Young produced the bank records for the activity on that account from January to April. He opened the account with a $4,617.50 deposit, but did not testify as to the origins of that money. A March 25 entry shows a $900 cash deposit, again, with no explanation as to its source, although Young testified that he sold methamphetamine for $800-$1,000 per ounce. On April 8, another unidentified deposit of $1,500 cash appears in the bank records followed by the April 17 deposit of $16,750 which was the check from Black Hawk County, and $575 which Young claims was a repayment of a debt. The records also show he withdrew $4,000 the day before he was arrested. Following his arrest, $3,890 was found in Young's coat pocket along with a bag of marijuana, suggesting a strong nexus between the bank account and his drug trade.
It is important to note, as did the district court, that Young had not been employed for eight years prior to the forfeiture hearing.
Evidence is substantial if the findings may be reasonably inferred from the evidence. Patrick, 562 N.W.2d at 194 (citing In re Property Seized from DeCamp, 511 N.W.2d 616, 619 (Iowa 1994)). The evidence presented at the hearing was sufficient for the district court to determine there was a substantial connection between the seizure of the cash and Young's criminal conduct. Even if a paper trail from his inheritance to the $16,750 bond money would have been produced at trial, he nonetheless commingled that money into a bank account he opened when he began to sell drugs. With no explanation as to some of the deposits and withdrawals, and those transactions having occurred during the time frame when Young was involved in the drug trade, Iowa Code section 8 8809A.12(10)(a) and (b) are satisfied. See generally Iowa Code § 809A.12(10)(a) and (b). ("[A] presumption arises that any property of a person is subject to forfeiture under this chapter if the state establishes any of the following: (a) The person has engaged in conduct giving rise to forfeiture. (b) The property was acquired by the person during that period of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture or within a reasonable time after that period.) In addition, the close association of the $4,000 cash withdrawn from the Union Planters account and the $3,890 found in his coat with a bag of marijuana suggests a substantial connection between the money and criminal conduct. We find the district court did not err in finding a substantial connection between the money seized and the drug activity.