After a 2 year battle the State of Alabama Appeals Court ruled that the confiscation of $52,560 from Juan Manuel Martinez-Camacho was not supported by evidence presented by the state of Alabama.  The court reversed the decision of a trial court that had found for the state because “Comacho failed to show that the money was not derived from proceeds obtained directly or indirectly from violation of any law of this state concerning controlled substances.”  In other words, Comacho did not prove his innocence.  The court of appeals decision stated:

We find our precedents sufficiently clear that, under such circumstances, the state failed to present evidence necessary to support a finding that $52, 560 was furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance in violation of any law of this state.”

The evidence the state presented to support the initial seizure was based on a positive hit from a drug sniffing dog yet no drugs were ever found on Comacho or in the vehicle.  In his testimony Officer Autery stated repeatedly that he relied on his “training and years of experience in criminal drug interdiction.” to determine that the money was obtained from drug sales.

So the initial seizure of the money was based on a positive reaction from a drug sniffing dog, no drugs were found, a lower court sided with the state because Camocho couldn’t prove his innocence, the officer involved didn’t rely on any evidence but on his years of experience, it took 2 years and an appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court for Camocho to get his money back.  Civil asset forfeiture needs to be ended, it is just a license to steal.

My thanks to Simon Black at Sovereign Man