METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR THE USE OF OR SALE BY THE DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT, APPELLANT,
v.
HILDA CASTANON GARCIA, AURELIO RAMOS AND A 1974 DODGE TRUCK, BEARING FLORIDA TAG # AJE-062, VIN # B11AB4V051759, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's release of a motor vehicle seized in a forfeiture proceeding, holding that trial judges have the authority to release vehicles to innocent owners and rejecting the state's argument that only law enforcement officers possess this power.
Trial judges have the authority to release vehicles to innocent owners in forfeiture proceedings. The court rejected the state's argument that Section 943.44(1), Florida Statutes, vests release authority exclusively in law enforcement officers rather than the circuit court.
[1] A trial judge should release a motor vehicle to its innocent owner when law enforcement officers attempt to effect the forfeiture of the vehicle for its use in the transp…
[2] The statutory forfeiture provisions do not preclude a circuit court from releasing a seized vehicle to an innocent owner.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When law enforcement officers attempt to effect the forfeiture of a motor vehicle which has been used in the transportation of contraband, a trial judge should release the vehicle to its innocent owner.”
Statement of the core legal principle governing the court's decision that trial judges have authority to release vehicles to innocent owners.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaw enforcement officers seized a 1974 Dodge truck and initiated forfeiture proceedings against it, alleging it had been used in the transportation of…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
When law enforcement officers attempt to effect the forfeiture of a motor vehicle1 which has been used in the transportation of contraband, a trial judge should release the vehicle to its innocent owner. One 1973 Cadillac v. State, 372 So. 2d 103 (Fla.2d DCA 1979).
We do not adopt the reasoning that Section 943.44(1), Florida Statutes (1977) allows law enforcement officers, but not the circuit court, the power to release a vehicle to an innocent owner. Therefore, the order under review, which discharged the petition for forfeiture and released the vehicle, be and it is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
. § 943.43, Fla.Stat. (1977)
“Forfeiture of vessel, motor vehicle, or aircraft; exceptions; Any vessel, motor vehicle, or aircraft which has been or is being used in violation of any provision of s. 943.42 or in, upon, or by means of which, any violation of said section has taken or is taking place shall be seized and may be forfeited. No vessel, motor vehicle, or aircraft used by any person as a common carrier in the transaction of business as a common carrier nor any other vessel, motor vehicle, or aircraft shall be forfeited under the provisions of ss. 943.41-943.44 unless the owner or person legally in charge of such vessel, motor vehicle, or aircraft was at the time of the alleged illegal act a consenting party or privy thereto. No vessel, motor vehicle, or aircraft shall be forfeited under the provisions of ss. 943.41-943.44 by reason of any act or omission established by the owner thereof to have been committed or omitted by any person other than such owner while such vessel, motor vehicle, or aircraft was unlawfully in the possession of a person who acquired possession thereof in violation of the criminal laws of this state or any political subdivision thereof, any other state, or the United States.”
§ 943.44, Fla.Stat. (1977)
“Forfeiture proceedings.
“(1) The State attorney within whose jurisdiction the vessel, motor vehicle, or aircraft has been seized because of its use or attempted use in violation of any provisions of law dealing with contraband as herein defined may proceed against the vessel, motor vehicle, or aircraft by rule to show cause in the circuit court within the jurisdiction in which the offense occurred and may have such vessel, motor vehicle, or aircraft forfeited to the use of, or to be sold by, the law enforcement agency making the seizure, upon producing'due proof that the vessel, motor vehicle, or aircraft was being used in violation of the provisions of said law. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to innocent parties or destroy any valid lien or retain title contract on vessels, motor vehicles, or aircraft as defined by existing registration law, and the notation of a lien upon the face of the certificate of title shall be deemed prima facie valid. The seizing agency may release said vessel, motor vehicle, or aircraft to the innocent party or lienholder upon the filing of a sworn affidavit by said innocent party or lienholder that he had no knowledge of the alleged violation causing such seizure and upon then producing a valid certificate of title.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wayne and Vivian Smith v. L.J. "Lu" Hindery, 454 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…wners from forfeiture of their property, even though it may have been used in a specified criminal enterprise. In re 36' Uniflite “Pioneer I, ” supra; One 1973 Cadillac v. State, 372 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Metropolitan Dade County v. Garcia, 375 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The court, as well as the seizing official, has the power to release a seized vehicle to an innocent owner. Metropolitan Dade County v. Garcia, supra.- Cf, In re Forfeiture of Alcoholic Beverages Seized from Saul’s Elks Club, 440…
-
In re Forfeiture of the Following Described Prop.: 1979 Lincoln Cont'l v. City OF Miami, 405 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…e criminal purpose for which it was employed. See Griffis v. State, 356 So. 2d 297 (Fla.1978); In re 36' Uniflite, the “Pioneer I,” Registration No. FL 7894 AH, 398 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), and cases cited; Metropolitan Dade County v. Garcia, 375 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). For two independent reasons, we disagree. First, the trial judge could properly have found that Mrs. Brown’s self-serving, uncorroborated, and highly dubious recounting of the circumstances under which she entrusted the vehicle…
-
In re 36' Uniflite v. State of Fla. & Ponce Inlet Police Dep't, 398 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…ish that he was, in fact, unaware of the illegal use.3 Both the Second and Third District Courts of Appeal have held that the forfeiture provision does not apply to property of innocent owners or lienholders. See Metropolitan Dade County v. Garcia, 375 So. 2d 45 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); In re 1975 Grand Prix, Fla. Tag No. 1W-354912, Vin. No. 2K57S5A150910, 374 So. 2d 1119 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). In Griffis, the Florida Supreme Court, noted that the targets of vehicle forfeitures intended by the legislature are the “n…
Authorities Cited
- ONE 1973 Cadillac v. State, 372 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)