ONE DOUGLAS DC-3 AIRCRAFT, A/K/A C-47 AIRCRAFT, SERIAL NUMBER 4306, U.S. INTERNATIONAL AVIATION REGISTRATION NUMBER N48FV, AND JOEL RIBLER, AS PRESIDENT OF F.N.A., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The State of Florida sought forfeiture of a DC-3 aircraft under the Florida Uniform Contraband Transportation Act after cannabis was found aboard. The trial court ordered forfeiture based on multiple independent grounds for seizure, and the appellate court affirmed, distinguishing this case from a related matter that had reversed on abandonment grounds alone.
The trial court's order forfeiting the aircraft was affirmed because the totality of evidence supported the court's findings that seizure was justified on multiple independent grounds: abandonment, plain view, probable cause, exigent circumstances, and reasonable belief the aircraft was being used to facilitate contraband transport.
[1] A seizure of an aircraft for forfeiture is justified if there is a reasonable belief that the aircraft has been and is being used to facilitate the transport of contraban…
[2] A court may deny a motion to suppress evidence if the seizure was justified on grounds other than abandonment, such as plain view, probable cause, or exigent circumstance…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“this Court specifically finds that the entry into the above described aircraft, the seizure of the same, and the seizure of the cannabis therein was justified on any or all of the following grounds: abandonment, plain-view, probable cause and exigent circumstances, and seizure of the aircraft for forfeiture, based upon the reasonable belief that the aircraft had been and was being used to facilitate the transport of contraband.”
The trial court's alternative grounds for ordering forfeiture, establishing that multiple independent bases supported the seizure.
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 seized a DC-3 aircraft (Serial Number 4306, Registration N48FV) and cannabis found within it. The trial court found the aircraft had b…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abandonment cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
The State of Florida filed a petition in the court below for a rule to show cause why appellants should not forfeit their aircraft under Section 943.43, Florida Statutes (1978), the Florida Uniform Contraband Transportation Act. The court found that the aircraft should be forfeited, and appellants appeal from that order. In the findings and conclusions of the order of forfeiture, the trial judge made the following statement:
In sum, this Court specifically finds that the entry into the above described aircraft, the seizure of the same, and the seizure of the cannabis therein was justified on any or all of the following grounds: abandonment, plain-view, probable cause and exigent circumstances, and seizure of the aircraft for forfeiture, based upon the reasonable belief that the aircraft had been and was being used to facilitate the transport of contraband.
A careful review of the record in this case reveals that the totality of the evidence supports the court’s ruling.
We note that this ease arises from the same facts as Agnew et al. v. State, 376 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). In those consolidated cases the trial court denied the appellants’ motions to suppress evidence seized from the aircraft and stated in the final order:
It is thereupon specifically found as a fact that the aircraft searched and from which the contraband was seized was abandoned by the defendants prior to the search which they challenged.
We held that the facts could not sustain a theory of abandonment as the basis for the denial of appellants’ motions to suppress. We therefore reversed the judgments and sentences of three of the appellants and remanded the causes to the trial court to determine whether or not there was any basis other than abandonment sufficient to deny the motions to suppress.
In the instant case, the trial court considered all the evidence and concluded that, in addition to the theory of abandonment, there were several other reasons which would justify seizure of the aircraft. There was ample evidence available to support the court’s order. We therefore affirm.
BOARDMAN and DANAHY, JJ., concur.