Baker, J.
Two parcels being shipped from one state to another caught the attention of a detective. … After a K-9 unit gave positive alerts on both parcels, a search warrant was obtained. The only thing inside the parcels was cash, which was seized by the State as proceeds of drug trafficking. … The State now seeks to turn the seized cash over to the federal government.
Jacob Murphy, Robert Bowman, and Tommy Maurry (collectively, the Appellants) appeal the trial court’s order granting the State’s motion to transfer approximately $30,000 to the United States. …
On November 20, 2015, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Detective Brian Thorla was visually inspecting parcels at a local shipping company. …The parcels drew Detective Thorla’s attention because they were paid for priority overnight, heavily taped, and addressed to the same recipient in California, which is known by law enforcement “to be a source state for the importation/exportation of controlled substances . . . .” …
… The warrants authorized law enforcement to open and search the parcels “for controlled substances, records of drug trafficking, and proceeds of drug trafficking.” … They found no controlled substances or records of drug trafficking, but one parcel contained currency in the amount of $15,000 and the other contained currency in the amount of $15,300. …
….
The Appellants do not argue that the search was unlawful, nor do they dispute that, if the money was properly seized, it may properly be turned over to the United States. Instead, the Appellants argue that the seizure of the money went beyond the scope of the search warrant, that the seizure was therefore unlawful, and that, as a result, the money may not be turned over to the federal government. …
… Our Supreme Court has held that “if the search or seizure of . . . property was unlawful, the turnover order must be reversed.” Membres, 889 N.E.2d at 269.
…A search warrant must describe “with particularity . . . the items to be seized.” Pavey v. State, 764 N.E.2d 692, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). …
Here, the search warrants authorized law enforcement to open and search the parcels “for controlled substances, records of drug trafficking, and proceeds of drug trafficking.” … In other words, the search warrant did not (and could not) authorize the seizure of any and all currency; instead, that currency must be found to be “derived directly or indirectly from, produced through, or realized through” drug trafficking.
The only evidence in the record supporting such a conclusion is as follows:
• The parcels were being shipped to California.
• The parcels were being sent to the same recipient.
• The parcels were heavily taped.
• The parcels were shipped priority overnight.
• A K-9 unit alerted to the two parcels.
We can easily dispense with the first four pieces of evidence. … If all money shipped in heavily taped parcels mailed to California via priority overnight mail could be seized as proceeds of drug trafficking, many last-minute gift recipients at holiday and birthday time would be sorely disappointed (and surprised).
So, we are left with the fact that a K-9 unit gave positive alerts on both parcels at issue. The very most that this fact means is that at some point, someone handling the parcels transferred an odor of controlled substances to them. It may have been Bowman and Maurry, who sent the parcels, or it may have been any number of individuals involved with the handling of the parcels in transit. …
No drugs were found in the parcels. No drug paraphernalia was found in the parcels. No evidence of drug trafficking or any unlawful activity was found in the parcels. None of the Appellants have been charged with any state or federal offenses in connection with the parcels; indeed, there is no indication that they have even been under investigation. Under these circumstances, we find that the seizure of the currency in the parcels exceeded the scope of the search warrant—no reasonable person would conclude, based on these facts, that the currency was the proceeds of drug trafficking. …
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded with instructions to order the return of the currency to the Appellants.
Bailey, J., and Altice, J., concur.