A drug dog alert on money without the presence of drugs cannot support a forfeiture. Martinez-Camacho v. State, 2019 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 102 (Aug. 2, 2019):
Based on the precedents described above, we are not persuaded by the State’s argument based on Agee, Wherry, $10,000, and Harris, all of which are distinguishable in pertinent respects regarding the relationship between the property and purported drug transactions at issue. The facts in the present case reflect that a drug-detection dog alerted to an unknown narcotic of unknown legality and of unknown quantity, at an unknown specific location (truck or money), in a vehicle where a few stacks of possibly illegally acquired, bound cash were hidden. The only suggested drug transaction purportedly occurred in Georgia, and that was based on pure speculation that required reliance upon, in part, a witness (Camacho) that the trial court correctly found not credible. We find our precedents sufficiently clear that, under such circumstances, the State failed to present the evidence necessary to support a finding that the $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.” § 20-2-93(a)(4).