Rush, C.J.
Today we address a narrow question: did probable cause support the seizure of property that a court later ordered state police officers to turn over to federal authorities? While we answer this question affirmatively, we cannot—and do not—speculate about whether civil forfeiture of the property would be appropriate.
Here, a shipped box raised the suspicion of an interdiction officer: it displayed hallmarks of parcels containing drugs and drug money, and the officer’s canine partner indicated the package bore the scent of narcotics. The officer successfully sought a warrant authorizing a search of the package and seizure of, among other items, proceeds of drug trafficking.
When officers opened the box, they found U.S. currency wrapped in multiple layers of sealed packaging. After a canine alerted that the money itself—not just the packaging—contained the odor of narcotics, officers seized the cash and obtained a court order to turn it over to federal authorities.
Michael Hodges, the person who shipped the parcel, argues that the seizure was unlawful because it exceeded the warrant’s scope—making the turnover of the cash improper. We disagree. The totality of the circumstances established the necessary probable cause to believe the money was proceeds of drug trafficking.
….
The propriety of the turnover order depends on whether the seizure was supported by probable cause to believe the cash was proceeds of drug trafficking, Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1 (2018). This is a question of law that we review de novo. See Membres v. State, 889 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. 2008). But we defer to the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, and we consider conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. Id.
….
Hodges does not dispute that probable cause supported the warrant to search the package. He argues only that the seizure exceeded the warrant’s scope and was thus unlawful.
….
The seizure was lawful if Detective Thorla had probable cause to believe the cash was proceeds of drug trafficking. From the standpoint of an objectively reasonable officer in the detective’s position before the seizure, the circumstances—taken altogether—supplied a basis for the necessary probable cause to seize the cash.
Detective Thorla’s training and experience, both with drug-sniffing dog alerts on money and with detecting parcels containing controlled substances, informed his view of the circumstances.
….
The multiple layers of sealed packaging, including a vacuum-sealed plastic container, signaled attempts to conceal narcotic odors. The large amount of cash, rubber banded into stacks of small bills that were mostly twenties, was consistent with stashes of currency traded in drug transactions. …
Might each of these circumstances be the result of innocent behavior? Yes. It may well be that the cash is not proceeds of drug trafficking. It may be as Hodges asserts—that he mailed the $60,990.00 to a World Series ticket holder in a lawful exchange for expensive tickets.
But the existence of a post hoc innocent explanation does not preclude probable cause from forming. Here, the combination of circumstances gave Detective Thorla reason to believe that the cash was proceeds of drug trafficking. That is enough to meet the probable-cause standard, making the seizure lawful and the turnover proper.
This does not mean, however, that the cash will be forfeited. Once the money is turned over, the government may either return the property or seek forfeiture. If it seeks forfeiture, the court overseeing that proceeding may assess any innocent explanations for the circumstances and determine who is entitled to the property. We decide only that the turnover from state to federal authorities is proper.
Conclusion
Probable cause is not a determination of guilt but allows for additional investigation and proceedings. Here, all the circumstances—taken as a whole and viewed from the perspective of an objectively reasonable officer in Detective Thorla’s position—supplied a basis for probable cause to believe the cash was proceeds of drug trafficking.
The seizure was thus lawful, and we affirm the trial court’s order transferring the property to the federal government.
Justices David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff concur.