STREIT, Judge.
Mary Patrick appeals from a district court judgment ruling $10,000 seized by police from Patrick was forfeitable property. Patrick contends there was no evidence linking the money with any criminal activity to support the forfeiture.
Narcotics police received a tip that there was a “suspicious” female at the Des Moines airport who should be investigated. The female, Mary Patrick, had booked a one-way ticket to San Diego, California. The officers asked Patrick’s airline for her itinerary and discovered Patrick had checked one suitcase. A police drug dog was brought to the baggage area and from five suitcases set on the floor, the dog twice signaled Patrick’s suitcase contained narcotics. The police stopped Patrick before she boarded her plane and asked if she had any “illegal narcotics, weapons or currency” in her suitcase. Patrick said no. The officers told her that a drug dog had indicated there were narcotics in her suitcase and asked permission to search the suitcase. Patrick consented to a police [194]*194search of her suitcase and boarded the plane to California.1
The police searched Patrick’s suitcase. They found clothing, an empty Tupperware container, empty plastic sandwich bags, duct tape, a bank bag containing $10,000 in the form of 500 twenty dollar bills, and a very small quantity of methamphetamine.2 The money and suitcase were seized by the police.
Patrick received a notice of forfeiture. She filed an application for the return of the $10,000. Following a hearing, the district court concluded the money was forfeitable property because it was “intended to facilitate the commission of a criminal offense to wit, the sale of illegal drugs.” The court also stated the money was acquired from the proceeds of illegal drug sales.
Patrick appeals. She contends the district court used impermissible conjecture and speculation to link the $10,000 in her possession as proceeds from a drug transaction or money to be used to facilitate a drug transaction.
Review of forfeiture proceedings is for correction of errors at law. In re Property Seized from Chiodo, 555 N.W.2d 412, 414 (Iowa 1996) (citing In re Property Seized from DeCamp, 511 N.W.2d 616, 619 (Iowa 1994)). 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. Id. Those findings are binding on the court if supported by substantial evidence. Chiodo, 555 N.W.2d at 414 (citing In re Property Seized from Rush, 448 N.W.2d 472, 477 (Iowa 1989)). “An order of forfeiture will not be reversed unless the evidence is utterly wanting to support the conclusion of the trial court.” Chiodo, 555 N.W.2d at 414 (quoting State v. 1984 Monte Carlo SS, 521 N.W.2d 723, 724 (Iowa 1994)). The conclusions of the trial court must be supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence does not, however, denote some elevated quantity of proof. State v. Anderson, 517 N.W.2d 208, 211 (Iowa 1994). Rather, the relevant question in our review of the case 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.
Mary Patrick argues the evidence supporting the State’s burden of proof was all circumstantial. Specifically, she claims the State failed to prove any connection of criminal activity to her and the money since: (1) she has no criminal record; (2) there were no drugs in the ease except for “invisible” methamphetamine of which there was insufficient amounts for an independent test; (3) she produced receipts for where the money came from and explained why she had it; and (4) she gave explanations for the other contents of her bag.
Forfeiture of property under Iowa Code chapter 8093 requires a “substantial connection” between the seized property and the underlying criminal offense. In re Property of Doolin, 560 N.W.2d 31 (Iowa 1996) (citing DeCamp, 511 N.W.2d at 620); Iowa Code § 809.1(2) (1995). The police seized the $10,-000 from Mary Patrick because the money was intended to be used to buy illegal drugs in California and then return to sell the drugs in Iowa. The money was also acquired from the proceeds of illegal drug sales. The trial court concluded that the fact the methamphetamine was found in the suitcase, although a very small quantity, indicates her suitcase and money were the tools of the drug trade and had previously been used to haul drugs.
Evidence is substantial if the findings may be reasonably inferred from the evidence. DeCamp, 511 N.W.2d at 619. Expert testimony from narcotics police officers stated duct tape, plastic sandwich bags, and Tupperware containers were commonly used by [195]*195drug dealers to conceal the drugs they were carrying from drug-sniffing dogs. They stated drug deals are usually made with $20 bills. Couriers buy one-way airline tickets when they go to purchase the drugs, then they return on a bus with the drugs because there is less security at bus depots than at airports. The Tupperware container would hold two pounds of methamphetamine, approximately the same amount Mary Patrick could buy in California for $10,000 according to testimony by a special agent of the Division of Narcotics Enforcement (DNE).
Patrick contends that her lack of any criminal record rebuts any suspicious inferences from these circumstances. Her name, however, arose in two other drug investigations, one investigation which involved the individual she visited in San Diego. The other investigation, Mary Patrick’s phone number appeared on the phone records of an individual convicted for possession of methamphetamine.
Mary Patrick did not have reasonable explanations for carrying the things in her suitcase, such as a Tupperware container and duct tape, including only one pair of underwear for a trip to California that she claims was uncertain in length. She claimed the Tupperware container was for her shampoo so it would not spill while in flight, but the shampoo was not in the container when police searched her suitcase and the bottle was too large to fit in the Tupperware container. Similarly, Mary Patrick’s reasoning for carrying duct tape was to tape her toiletries so they would not spill, but none were taped in her suitcase.
Patrick never adequately explained why she cheeked in a suitcase containing $10,000 cash wrapped in two plain paper bundles in a bank money bag. She said she wrapped the money that way to protect it from being stolen by “the airport people.” We find it unlikely if Patrick’s only concern was for the safety of the money she would decide to check in the suitcase containing $10,000 versus keeping the money with her on the plane in a carry-on bag. Mary Patrick has not worked for years and her only means of support is her boyfriend.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STREIT, Judge.
Mary Patrick appeals from a district court judgment ruling $10,000 seized by police from Patrick was forfeitable property. Patrick contends there was no evidence linking the money with any criminal activity to support the forfeiture.
Narcotics police received a tip that there was a “suspicious” female at the Des Moines airport who should be investigated. The female, Mary Patrick, had booked a one-way ticket to San Diego, California. The officers asked Patrick’s airline for her itinerary and discovered Patrick had checked one suitcase. A police drug dog was brought to the baggage area and from five suitcases set on the floor, the dog twice signaled Patrick’s suitcase contained narcotics. The police stopped Patrick before she boarded her plane and asked if she had any “illegal narcotics, weapons or currency” in her suitcase. Patrick said no. The officers told her that a drug dog had indicated there were narcotics in her suitcase and asked permission to search the suitcase. Patrick consented to a police [194]*194search of her suitcase and boarded the plane to California.1
The police searched Patrick’s suitcase. They found clothing, an empty Tupperware container, empty plastic sandwich bags, duct tape, a bank bag containing $10,000 in the form of 500 twenty dollar bills, and a very small quantity of methamphetamine.2 The money and suitcase were seized by the police.
Patrick received a notice of forfeiture. She filed an application for the return of the $10,000. Following a hearing, the district court concluded the money was forfeitable property because it was “intended to facilitate the commission of a criminal offense to wit, the sale of illegal drugs.” The court also stated the money was acquired from the proceeds of illegal drug sales.
Patrick appeals. She contends the district court used impermissible conjecture and speculation to link the $10,000 in her possession as proceeds from a drug transaction or money to be used to facilitate a drug transaction.
Review of forfeiture proceedings is for correction of errors at law. In re Property Seized from Chiodo, 555 N.W.2d 412, 414 (Iowa 1996) (citing In re Property Seized from DeCamp, 511 N.W.2d 616, 619 (Iowa 1994)). 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. Id. Those findings are binding on the court if supported by substantial evidence. Chiodo, 555 N.W.2d at 414 (citing In re Property Seized from Rush, 448 N.W.2d 472, 477 (Iowa 1989)). “An order of forfeiture will not be reversed unless the evidence is utterly wanting to support the conclusion of the trial court.” Chiodo, 555 N.W.2d at 414 (quoting State v. 1984 Monte Carlo SS, 521 N.W.2d 723, 724 (Iowa 1994)). The conclusions of the trial court must be supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence does not, however, denote some elevated quantity of proof. State v. Anderson, 517 N.W.2d 208, 211 (Iowa 1994). Rather, the relevant question in our review of the case 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.
Mary Patrick argues the evidence supporting the State’s burden of proof was all circumstantial. Specifically, she claims the State failed to prove any connection of criminal activity to her and the money since: (1) she has no criminal record; (2) there were no drugs in the ease except for “invisible” methamphetamine of which there was insufficient amounts for an independent test; (3) she produced receipts for where the money came from and explained why she had it; and (4) she gave explanations for the other contents of her bag.
Forfeiture of property under Iowa Code chapter 8093 requires a “substantial connection” between the seized property and the underlying criminal offense. In re Property of Doolin, 560 N.W.2d 31 (Iowa 1996) (citing DeCamp, 511 N.W.2d at 620); Iowa Code § 809.1(2) (1995). The police seized the $10,-000 from Mary Patrick because the money was intended to be used to buy illegal drugs in California and then return to sell the drugs in Iowa. The money was also acquired from the proceeds of illegal drug sales. The trial court concluded that the fact the methamphetamine was found in the suitcase, although a very small quantity, indicates her suitcase and money were the tools of the drug trade and had previously been used to haul drugs.
Evidence is substantial if the findings may be reasonably inferred from the evidence. DeCamp, 511 N.W.2d at 619. Expert testimony from narcotics police officers stated duct tape, plastic sandwich bags, and Tupperware containers were commonly used by [195]*195drug dealers to conceal the drugs they were carrying from drug-sniffing dogs. They stated drug deals are usually made with $20 bills. Couriers buy one-way airline tickets when they go to purchase the drugs, then they return on a bus with the drugs because there is less security at bus depots than at airports. The Tupperware container would hold two pounds of methamphetamine, approximately the same amount Mary Patrick could buy in California for $10,000 according to testimony by a special agent of the Division of Narcotics Enforcement (DNE).
Patrick contends that her lack of any criminal record rebuts any suspicious inferences from these circumstances. Her name, however, arose in two other drug investigations, one investigation which involved the individual she visited in San Diego. The other investigation, Mary Patrick’s phone number appeared on the phone records of an individual convicted for possession of methamphetamine.
Mary Patrick did not have reasonable explanations for carrying the things in her suitcase, such as a Tupperware container and duct tape, including only one pair of underwear for a trip to California that she claims was uncertain in length. She claimed the Tupperware container was for her shampoo so it would not spill while in flight, but the shampoo was not in the container when police searched her suitcase and the bottle was too large to fit in the Tupperware container. Similarly, Mary Patrick’s reasoning for carrying duct tape was to tape her toiletries so they would not spill, but none were taped in her suitcase.
Patrick never adequately explained why she cheeked in a suitcase containing $10,000 cash wrapped in two plain paper bundles in a bank money bag. She said she wrapped the money that way to protect it from being stolen by “the airport people.” We find it unlikely if Patrick’s only concern was for the safety of the money she would decide to check in the suitcase containing $10,000 versus keeping the money with her on the plane in a carry-on bag. Mary Patrick has not worked for years and her only means of support is her boyfriend. It is difficult to accept Patrick’s tale that most of the money came from cash advances on credit cards and winnings at the casino. Ten thousand dollars in cash in a suitcase is sufficiently suspicious when there is methamphetamine also present for the trial court to reasonably conclude this money was being used in a drug deal.
There was enough methamphetamine in Mary Patrick’s suitcase to be sniffed out by a drug dog, to be seen by police in the bottom of the suitcase looking like sand, and to test positive in the field test. It was not “invisible” as Patrick contends. Patrick was not charged with a criminal offense, such as possession of drugs. Knowledge of methamphetamine in the suitcase by Mary Patrick is not required to seize the $10,000 — only a nexus between the money seized and criminal activity is required. See Iowa Code § 809.1(2) (1995). The presence of the methamphetamine in the suitcase provides a connection along with the other items in the suitcase and Mary Patrick’s actions (buying a one-way ticket to California) support a finding the money seized was to be used to buy and sell drugs.
Mary Patrick did produce receipts for the $10,000, showing the last source of the money as being banks and a casino. Patrick showed $2000 were winnings from Mesquaki Bingo and Casino; $3000 was from cash advances from VISA cards; $2500 was from a loan from her boyfriend; and $2500 was her own money. This Court cannot find these receipts legitimatized the source of the funds. A special agent from the DNE testified cash advances on credit cards are common among traffickers who repay the money with the proceeds from drug sales. This Court is also not persuaded by Patrick’s receipt of winnings from Mesquaki. Such receipt does not tell the source or amount of the cash used to bet.
In light of the evidence presented at trial, we find the district court did not err in ordering a forfeiture of Mary Patrick’s $10,-000. The burden is on the State to prove a substantial connection between the money and the illegal activity. All the circumstances of this case, combined with Patrick’s feeble explanation of her actions and the source of the money, supports reasonably dedueible inferences the defendant was going [196]*196to use the $10,000 seized by the police to buy illegal drugs in California and return to Iowa to sell them.
AFFIRMED.
VOGEL, J. concurs.
SCHLEGEL, S.J., dissents.