Section 16-13-509 - Evidentiary presumption(1) Whenever clear and convincing evidence adduced in an action pursuant to this part 5 shows a substantial connection between currency and the acts specified in section 16-13-503, a rebuttable presumption shall arise that said currency is contraband property. A substantial connection exists if: (a) Currency in the aggregate amount of one thousand dollars or more was seized at or close to the time of the occurrence of the subject act or of the recovery of evidence of the subject act; and(b)(I) Said amount of currency was seized on the same premises or in the same vehicle where the subject acts occurred or where evidence of said acts was developed or recovered; or(II) Said amount of currency was seized from the possession or control of a person engaged in said acts; or(III) Traces of a controlled substance were discovered on the currency or an animal trained in the olfactory detection of controlled substances indicated the presence of the odor of a controlled substance on the currency as testified to by an expert witness.(1.5) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part 5 to the contrary, the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, only the facts that give rise to the presumption that currency is contraband property pursuant to subsection (1) of this section. However, when a preponderance of credible evidence is adduced to rebut a presumption that has arisen pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the burden of proof shall revert to the plaintiff to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of the plaintiff's case with respect to the currency.(2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall not be construed so as to limit the introduction of any other competent evidence offered to prove that seized currency is contraband property.L. 87: Entire section added, p. 644, § 24, effective July 1. L. 2003: IP(1) amended and (1.5) added, p. 896, § 7, effective July 1.