Case: 25CI2:16-cv-00009

Document #: 1

Filed: 02/12/2016

Page 1 of 3

Case: 25CI2:16-cv-00009

Document #: 1

Filed: 02/12/2016

Page 2 of 3

Case: 25CI2:16-cv-00009

Document #: 1

Filed: 02/12/2016

Page 3 of 3

Case: 25CI2:16-cv-00009

Document #: 8

Filed: 03/04/2016

Page 1 of 4

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, EX REL.

HINDS COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
VS.

PLAINTIFF

Civil Cause No. 16-009

ONE MILLION SIXTY EIGHT THOUSAND

SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY ONE DOLLARS
($1,068,721.00) IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY

DEFENDANT

MOTION FOR JOINDER

COMES NOW, Robert Shuler Smith, District Attorney of Hinds County, Mississippi and
files this Motion seeking Joinder in the above styled and numbered cause and would show unto
this Honorable Court the following, to-wit:
1. That the above styled suit was filed by Attorney B. Parker Berry on behalf of the Hinds
County Sheriffs Department on February 12, 2016. Attorney B. Parker Berry is not affiliated
with the Hinds County District Attorneys Office.
2. That this action is a civil forfeiture proceeding wherein the Hinds County Sheriffs
Department is seeking the forfeiture of the above listed funds for having been used or being
intended to be used for illegal drug activities in violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances
Law. See MCA 41-29-153 et seq.
3. That the Office of the Hinds County District Attorney is a designated law enforcement
agency permitted to share in the proceeds of a forfeiture under the Mississippi statutes governing
same. See Mississippi Attorney General Opinion Mellon (September 10, 1992) .
4. That pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 19 (a)(2), should a person, subject to the
jurisdiction of this Court, claim an interest relating to the subject of the action and that person is

Case: 25CI2:16-cv-00009

Document #: 8

Filed: 03/04/2016

Page 2 of 4

so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or
impede his ability to protect that interest, then that person shall be joined as a party in the action.
5. Over the past several weeks, assurances have been made by the Sheriff of Hinds County that
the Office of the District Attorney will continue to be allowed to participate in this forfeiture
proceeding and will thereafter be authorized by MCA 41-29-181 to share in the proceeds.
These assurances have created an interest, as is contemplated by Rule 19(a)(2), relating to the
subject of this action authorizing the District Attorney for Hinds County to join in this
proceeding. Should the Court deny this joinder, then there is no party protecting the interest of
the District Attorney, and that interest will be irrevocably impaired and impeded.
6. That pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 19 (a)(2), should a person, subject to the
jurisdiction of this Court, claim an interest relating to the subject of the action and that person is
so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (ii) leave any of the persons
already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple or otherwise inconsistent
obligations by reason of his claimed interest, then that person shall be joined as a party in the
action.
7. The Hinds County Sheriff, a party to this action, has repeatedly made assurances to the
District Attorneys Office that the District Attorneys Office will receive Twenty (20%) percent
of the forfeited funds in accordance with MCA 41-29-181. The statute requires that the law
enforcement agency participate in the forfeiture proceedings in order to qualify for 20% of the
proceeds. Although it is understood that the District Attorneys Office has heretofore
participated in this proceeding by meeting with the Sheriff on several occasions as well as
providing him with a detailed memorandum on Mississippi statutes and providing legal advice
dealing with civil forfeitures, it is nevertheless the desire of the District Attorney to be properly

Case: 25CI2:16-cv-00009

Document #: 8

Filed: 03/04/2016

Page 3 of 4

joined and in doing so, continue to participate in the proceedings.

8. Rule 19 (a)(2) says joinder shall be done if the absence of joining a party will leave any of the
parties already involved subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple or otherwise
inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest. If the District Attorney is not joined,
and since there is no other law enforcement agency other than the Hinds County Sheriff
involved in this seizure, then MCA 41-29-181(2)(a) mandates that the Sheriff deposit 20% of
the proceeds of the forfeiture to the State Treasurer to be deposited in the General Fund of the
State. On the one hand there is the District Attorney, who, based on the previous assurances by
the Hinds County Sheriff and based on participation already provided, will insist on the Sheriff
paying the 20% to the Office of the District Attorney. On the other hand, if the District Attorney
is not joined, the State Treasurer would also demand the Sheriff to pay them the 20% as MCA
41-29-181(2)(a) requires. Clearly this would subject the Hinds County Sheriff to the substantial
risk of incurring double and otherwise inconsistent obligations. In this instance therefore, that
person shall be joined as a party in the action. By joining the District Attorney and allowing this
office to continue to participate, then the State Treasurer no longer has any interest in this
proceeding and any fear of incurring double or otherwise inconsistent obligations is alleviated.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Movant prays that this Motion for Joinder
be received and filed, and that upon due consideration by the Court, the District Attorney shall be
joined as a party to this action as a Co-Plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted
ROBERT SHULER SMITH

/Robert Shuler Smith/

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

Case: 25CI2:16-cv-00009

Document #: 8

Filed: 03/04/2016

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Robert Shuler Smith, do hereby certify that I have this day caused to be filed via the
MEC the above Motion for Joinder and have had noticed the attorney of record, B. Parker Berry,
as well as Sheriff Victor Mason, Hinds County Sheriff, at his office in Jackson, Ms.
This is the 4th day of March, 2016.
/Robert Shuler Smith/

Case: 25CI2:16-cv-00009

Document #: 12

Filed: 04/25/2016

Page 1 of 5

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, EX REL.
HINDS COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
VS.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL CAUSE NO. 16-9

ONE MILLION SIXTY-EIGHT THOUSAND

SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY-ONE DOLLARS
($1,068,721.00) IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY

DEFENDANT

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JOINDER

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, the State of Mississippi, by and through the Hinds County
Sheriffs Department (Sheriffs Department), and would respectfully show unto the Court the
following:
Facts
1.

On January 25, 2016, One Million Sixty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-One

Dollars ($1,068,721.00) was seized from a vehicle through probable cause by the Sheriffs
Department on I-20 West Bound at mile marker 31 in Hinds County, pursuant to Miss. Code
Ann. 41-29-153.
2.

Upon conclusion of an initial criminal investigation of the individuals in the vehicle at the

time of seizure, the Sheriffs Department made the determination to release the individuals and
not to file criminal charges at that time. The Sheriffs Department was the only law enforcement
agency involved in the seizure and the following criminal investigation.
3.

On February 4, 2016, the Sheriffs Department and the Hinds County Board of

Supervisors approved the hiring of the undersigned counsel herein to process and file the
underlying civil forfeiture.

Case: 25CI2:16-cv-00009

4.

Document #: 12

Filed: 04/25/2016

Page 2 of 5

On February 12, 2016, the Sheriffs Department filed its Petition for Forfeiture, while

issuing and publishing summonses to the pertinent parties.

5.

On March 4, 2016, the Hinds County District Attorneys Office (District Attorney),

though neither he nor his office participated in the seizure or subsequent criminal investigation,
filed a Motion for Joinder in the instant action.
Argument
6.

The District Attorney seeks joinder by alleging that he has an interest in this matter under

Miss. R. Civ. Pro. 19(a) because the Hinds County Sheriff has repeatedly made assurances to
the District Attorneys Office that the District Attorneys Office will receive Twenty (20%)
percent of the forfeited funds in accordance with MCA 41-29-181 and [t]he statute requires
that the law enforcement agency participate in the forfeiture proceedings in order to qualify for
20% of the proceeds. Dist. Attys Mot., p.2 (emphasis added).
7.

However, respectfully, the District Attorney misrepresents the applicable statute

concerning the requirements for law enforcement agencies to participate in the distribution of the
forfeiture proceeds. Miss. Code Ann. 41-29-181(2) provides:
(2) All other property, real or personal, which is forfeited under this article,
except as otherwise provided in Section 41-29-185, and except as provided in
subsections (3), (7) and (8) of this section, shall be liquidated and, after deduction
of court costs and the expenses of liquidation, the proceeds shall be divided and
deposited as follows:
(a) In the event only one (1) law enforcement agency participates in the
underlying criminal case out of which the forfeiture arises, twenty percent (20%)
of the proceeds shall be forwarded to the State Treasurer and deposited in the
General Fund of the state and eighty percent (80%) of the proceeds shall be
deposited and credited to the budget of the participating law enforcement agency.
(b) In the event more than one (1) law enforcement agency participates in the
underlying criminal case out of which the forfeiture arises, eighty percent (80%)
of the proceeds shall be deposited and credited to the budget of the law
enforcement agency whose officers initiated the criminal case and twenty percent

Case: 25CI2:16-cv-00009

Document #: 12

Filed: 04/25/2016

Page 3 of 5

(20%) shall be divided equitably between or among the other participating law
enforcement agencies, and shall be deposited and credited to the budgets of the
participating law enforcement agencies. In the event that the other participating
law enforcement agencies cannot agree on the division of their twenty percent
(20%), a petition shall be filed by any one of them in the court in which the civil
forfeiture case is brought and the court shall make an equitable division.
(emphasis added).
8.

While the District Attorney alleges, and thus the basis for his interest under the

joinder motion, that he or his office must participate in this civil forfeiture proceeding to
be able to claim 20% of the forfeited funds (upon favorable disposition of the underlying
forfeiture case by this Court), this argument is flawed upon a clear reading of Miss. Code
Ann. 41-29-181. Section 41-29-181(2) is unambiguous in that for a law enforcement
agency to have a claim or interest on forfeited funds, it must have participate[d] in the
underlying criminal case out of which the forfeiture arises . As provided above,
neither the District Attorney nor his office participated in the traffic stop, the seizure or
the subsequent criminal investigation that ultimately was concluded before the District
Attorney even became aware of the instant seizure. The Sheriffs Department was the
only law enforcement agency that participated in the underlying criminal case out of
which this forfeiture arises.
9.

Therefore, while the Sheriffs Department would prefer any forfeited funds to

remain in Hinds County for the benefit of its residents, it respectfully asserts that the
District Attorney has no legal claim to any forfeited proceeds in this matter. Accordingly,
the District Attorney has no interest under Miss. R. Civ. Pro. 19(a) that will be
impaired or impeded by his absence from this matter, nor is there any risk of the Sheriffs
Department incurring double, multiple or otherwise inconsistent obligations on any
forfeited proceeds herein.

Case: 25CI2:16-cv-00009

Document #: 12

Filed: 04/25/2016

Page 4 of 5

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State of Mississippi, ex rel. Hinds

County Sheriffs Department respectfully requests this Court to deny the Hinds County District
Attorneys Motion for Joinder, and grant such other relief as may be necessary.
Respectfully submitted, this the 25th day of April, 2016.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, EX REL. HINDS
COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
s/ B. Parker Berry
B. Parker Berry (MB# 104251)
Its Attorney
Of Counsel:
B. Parker Berry
Butler Snow LLP
P.O. Box 6010
Ridgeland, MS 39157
601-985-4402
parker.berry@butlersnow.com

Case: 25CI2:16-cv-00009

Document #: 12

Filed: 04/25/2016

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, B. Parker Berry, attorney for the Hinds County Sheriffs Department, hereby certify
that on this day I have filed the foregoing document to be served via this Courts MEC system
upon the following:
Robert Shuler Smith
Hinds County District Attorney
SO CERTIFIED, this 25th day of April, 2016.

s/ B. Parker Berry
B. Parker Berry