The Georgia Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court’s decision to set aside a civil asset forfeiture, finding that the state’s initial complaint lacked the necessary detail to meet legal requirements. The case, *State of Georgia v. TF4 Capital, LLC*, centers around the seizure of over $360,000 in cash from a minivan during a traffic stop.
The Initial Traffic Stop and Seizure
The events leading up to the legal battle began on August 1, 2022, in Dooly County. A sheriff’s deputy pulled over Peter T. Truong for following another vehicle too closely. Truong admitted to being on probation and having several thousand dollars in his possession. A canine unit was brought in, and the dog alerted to the presence of drugs on the driver’s side of the minivan. A search revealed the large sum of cash, packaged in bundles and hidden in a shoebox and a paper bag. The officer, citing the dog’s alert, the way the money was packaged, and Truong’s criminal history, which included drug-related convictions, concluded the money was connected to the drug trade and seized it.
The State’s Forfeiture Complaint
In September 2022, the State of Georgia filed a complaint in Dooly County Superior Court seeking to forfeit the seized currency. The complaint stated the money was “contraband and forfeitable” under Georgia law because it was “directly or indirectly used or intended for use to facilitate a violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act or is proceeds derived or realized from a violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act.”
TF4 Capital’s Intervention and the Trial Court’s Ruling
TF4 Capital, LLC, intervened in the case, claiming the money belonged to the business and was intended for the purchase of tanker trucks for an over-the-road hauling contract. After a bench trial, where both sides presented evidence, the trial court sided with the state, ruling that the money was subject to forfeiture.
Post-Trial Motions and the Motion to Set Aside
TF4 Capital then filed two post-trial motions: a motion to set aside the judgment and a motion for a new trial. The motion to set aside argued the state’s complaint didn’t meet the requirements of Georgia law because it failed to “allege the essential elements of the criminal violation which is claimed to exist.” The state didn’t respond to these motions. After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion to set aside, citing a recent ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court, *Smith v. State*. This ruling stated the state’s complaint was insufficient because it didn’t “recite language from any criminal statute setting forth the essential elements of a crime [or] . . . allege any facts constituting a crime.”
The State’s Appeal and the Court of Appeals Decision
The State appealed the trial court’s decision, arguing TF4 Capital had waived their claims, that *Smith* didn’t apply, and that it was impossible to include the elements of a crime in the complaint because this was an “illegal drug proceeds case.” However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the State’s arguments. The court pointed out that there was no record of the State raising these arguments in the lower court, which meant the trial court never had the opportunity to consider them. The court emphasized that it would not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.
The Court of Appeals also found the trial court correctly applied the *Smith* ruling. The court reiterated that the State’s forfeiture complaint needed to include enough information to withstand a legal challenge, such as reciting the elements of the crime or alleging facts that would establish a violation of a criminal statute. The original complaint, the court said, failed to meet this standard.
The Court’s Conclusion
Because the State failed to present its arguments in the initial proceedings, and because the original complaint lacked the necessary information, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to set aside the asset forfeiture. The court also denied TF4 Capital’s motion for damages for a frivolous appeal, although it expressed concern over the State’s handling of the appeal.