The attorney for a Texas man who left Arkansas nearly $20,000 lighter following a traffic stop is asking the state's top court to step in.
On Tuesday, attorney Pamela Panasiuk filed a petition for a rehearing with the Arkansas Supreme Court to review the case of her client, Guillermo Espinoza. In the case, the Arkansas Court of Appeals ruled that a trial court order confiscating the man's money would stand because Panasiuk did not lodge a timely appeal.
While traveling through Arkansas with his girlfriend in July 2013, Espinoza was stopped by a state trooper near Malvern.
After a conversation with Espinoza, the trooper became suspicious, and eventually Espinoza consented to a search where the trooper found no contraband but did find $19,894 in cash.
Though Espinoza was never charged with breaking the law or given a moving violation, prosecutors filed a petition for civil forfeiture of the cash seized in the stop.
In May 2014, prosecutors asked Hot Spring Circuit Judge Chris Williams to dismiss the case and return the money, but Williams felt there was substantial evidence of illicit activity and ordered the forfeiture to continue.
Espinoza provided pay stubs that showed proof of legitimate income, but in September 2014, the judge ordered that the money would stay with the state.
Panasiuk first asked Williams to reconsider his ruling. She then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which ruled it could not hear the case because of missed deadlines with the timeline set by the rules for civil procedure.
In a May 4 opinion, Court of Appeals Judge Waymond Brown criticized Williams' decision to ignore the prosecutor's request to dismiss the case and wrote: "I am of the belief that unsubstantiated suspicions are not just cause for circumventing established judicial practices."
Panasiuk argued that the Supreme Court should hear the case because, although forfeitures are matters of civil court, they are "quasi-criminal" and should be subject to a different standard of appeal and review.
She also argued that substantive policy questions drive the case.
"It is not illegal to possess cash. The State did not want to proceed and moved to dismiss. The judge denied the motion violating the State's absolute right to dismiss," Panasiuk argued. "Clearly, a substantial public interest is involved where individuals are in possession of money and the court orders it confiscated when there is no evidence proving the money is related to drug trafficking and where the court ignores the law."
Metro on 05/25/2016