agreeing that the exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings
How later courts described this case
- agreeing that the exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings
- listing states with similar approach
- action for forfeiture is a “relatively quick procedure and broad in *786 scope. It can also be highly profitable for the State.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BAKER, Judge,
concurring and dissent ing.
Although I agree with the majority's analysis of IND.CODE 34-4-80.1-1(c) and the rebuttable presumption it creates, I do not believe the $850 found on Caudill was seizable in this case because the State's own evidence rebutted the presumption the money was proceeds of a drug transaction.
The record reveals an informant paid Caudill between $350 and $400 in marked currency for an "eight-ball" of cocaine. When the detectives arrested Caudill several hours later, they found 4.4014 grams of cocaine in Caudill's front pocket, and $855 in cash. The State's own witnesses testified, however, that the $855 was not the same marked currency the informant gave Caudill earlier. Based on this testimony, we know the money was not proceeds from the earlier drug transaction; thus, the presumption of IND.CODE 84-4-80.1-1(c) was rebutted. I would reverse the seizure of the $850 in cash. In all other respects, I concur.