HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-0090 miscellaneousCOMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Vo
KARL JOSEPH WILLIAMS
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Vo
$2,085.00 U.S.C.
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
· CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
o
· No. 97-2278 CRIMINAL TERM
o
·
·
·
o
·
.
o
·
o
o
· No. 98-0090 MISCELLANEOUS
·
·
·
·
AND NOW, this
ORDER OF COURT
day of June, 1998, the Commonwealth's motion for forfeiture of
the property is hereby DENIED and the Defendant's motion for the return of the seized property
is hereby GRANTED. The Commonwealth is directed to forthwith return the seized property to
the Defendant.
Timothy Doherty, Esquire
Deputy Attorney General
Will Gabig, Esquire
Assistant District Attorney
For the Commonwealth
By the Court,
Edward E. Guido, J.
Gregory Abeln, Esquire
For the Defendant
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Vo
KARL JOSEPH WILLIAMS
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Vo
$2,085.00 U.S.C.
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
o
:No. 97-2278 CRIMINAL TERM
o
·
·
o
·
·
o
o
·
·
' No. 98-0090 MISCELLANEOUS
o
·
o
·
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
This action is a consolidation of two motions regarding money seized subsequent to the
arrest of Karl Williams on November 10, 1997. The first motion is for return of seized property
filed by the Defendant in Com. v. Williams. The second motion is for forfeiture and
condemnation of the money filed by the Commonwealth in Com. v. $2,085.00 U.S.C. By
agreement of the parties the matters were joined for heating on June 3, 1998. The matter is now
ready for disposition.
FINDINGS OF FACT
o
On November 10, 1997, Karl Joseph Williams was a passenger in a car that was stopped
for speeding on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
.
The Defendant was traveling from Allegheny County to Philadelphia County.
o
The Turnpike is frequently used by drug dealers to transport drugs between Philadelphia
and Allegheny County.
.
Incident to the stop, the police discovered one sealed envelope containing 3.4 grams of
marijuana.
XThe marijuana was found hidden under the hood of the car.
o
The Defendant acknowledged that the marijuana belonged to him and has since pleaded
guilty to charges in connection therewith.
o
The police also seized $2085 in cash. The cash was contained in an envelope located in
the fi'om center console (armrest) of the vehicle.
.
On January 14, 1998, the Defendant was arrested in Philadelphia for possession with
intent to deliver marijuana.
o
On October 30, 1997, the Defendant received a check from his mother in the amount of
$1080 to purchase a new car and/or to hire an attorney.
o
The $2085 dollars in the center console comprised the proceeds of said check along with
the proceeds from various support checks received by Defendant's girlfriend.
DISCUSSION
In a forfeiture proceeding the government bears the initial burden of establishing a
connection between seized property and criminal wrongdoing. Com. v. $9,310.00 U.S.C., 162
Pa. Commw. 315, 319, 638 A.2d 480, 482 (1994). Once the Commonwealth satisfies its initial
burden, it is then incumbent upon the owner to come forward with evidence to negate the criminal
connection. Id. In the instant case, after hearing the evidence proffered by Mr. Williams, we are
satisfied that the cash was not involved in illegal activity.
The Commonwealth argues that since Williams was in possession of a small amount of
marijuana and a large amount of cash on his way to Philadelphia, and since he was subsequently
arrested in Philadelphia in January 1998 for drug related charges, a presumption is raised that the
money was drug related. We agree that the evidence presented by the Commonwealth gives rise
to a presumption that the cash was involved in criminal activity. However, in the instant case the
Defendant produced a canceled check from his mother made payable to him in the amount of
$1,080.00. The check was cashed only ten days prior to this incident.2 The Defendant also
produced support check stubs totaling $1,500.00 from his girlfriend which were cashed in the two
months preceding the arrest. We are satisfied that the testimony and other evidence presented by
the Defendant was sufficient to rebut the presumption that the money was drug related.
For the forgoing reasons we are constrained to deny the Commonwealth's motion for
forfeiture and to grant the Defendant's motion for return of the seized property.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this///~day of June, 1998, the Commonwealth's motion for forfeiture of
the property is hereby DENIED and the Defendant's motion for the return of the seized property
is hereby GRANTED. The Commonwealth is directed to forthwith return the seized property to
the Defendant.
By the Court,
/s/Edward E. Guido, J.
Edward E. Guido, J.
Timothy Doherty, Esquire
Deputy Attorney General
Will Crabig, Esquire
Assistant District Attorney
For the Commonwealth
Gregory Abeln, Esquire
For the Defendant
car."
2The "memo" section of the canceled check specifically provided "money for lawyer and