IN RE FORFEITURE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: 1975 FORD: NORTH CAROLINA TAG NO. WEX 580; VIN. 5U65S182931. GERALD A. COLEMAN, SHERIFF OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DEWITT MARION BRANDON, III, 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 Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act does not authorize forfeiture of a vehicle for an attempted use to transport contraband.
[1] A motor vehicle is not subject to forfeiture under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act when only an attempt is made to use the vehicle for the transportation of contrab…
[2] Forfeiture statutes are strictly construed.
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 intelligenceA person was arrested while attempting to place bags of contraband into the trunk of his car. The sheriff petitioned for forfeiture of the vehicle.…
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 Strict Construction Of Forfeiture Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
We hold that the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act does not provide for forfeiture of a motor vehicle when only an attempt is made to use the vehicle for transportation of contraband.
DeWitt Brandon exited a motel with several bags of contraband. He placed the bags on the ground next to the open trunk of his car, apparently intending to put them in the trunk. Brandon was arrested before he could do so. The trial court dismissed the sheriff’s petition for forfeiture, holding that the evidence was insufficient to show that the vehicle was being used in violation of section 932.702, Florida Statutes (1981).
Subsection (3) of section 932.702 makes it unlawful:
(3) To use any vessel, motor vehicle, or aircraft to facilitate the transportation, carriage, conveyance, concealment, receipt, possession, purchase, sale, barter, exchange, or giving away of any contraband article.
Section 932.703(1) provides for forfeiture of any motor vehicle “which has been or is being used in violation of” section 932.702.
Forfeiture statutes are strictly construed. Estate of Maltie v. State, 404 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Caivano v. State, 331 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Here, the plain language of the statute refers to actual use of a vehicle to transport contraband articles. The legislature did not include either attempts or intended uses. We must not broaden the scope of legislative enactments where the language of the statute is clear. See Thayer v. State, 335 So. 2d 815 (Fla.1976).
The legislature, of course, may revisit the language of the statute as it did after the supreme court in Griffis v. State, 356 So. 2d 297 (Fla.1978), concluded that chapter 932 as then enacted did not provide for forfeiture for mere possession of controlled substances by the occupant of a vehicle. As a result, the 1980 legislature expanded the grounds for forfeiture by enacting the present section 932.702(4). See State v. Peters, 401 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
The trial court was correct in dismissing the petition for forfeiture.
Affirmed.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.
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)…Seas No. One, 104 So. 2d 570 (Fla.1958); In re 1969 Chevrolet Camaro, 334 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 342 So. 2d 1103 (Fla.1976); In re 36' Uniflite “Pioneer I, ” 398 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); In re Forfeiture of one 1975 Ford, 426 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); 39 Fla.Jur.2d, Penalties and Forfeitures, §§ 5, .6. Forfeiture statutes are intended to apply to individuals who are significantly involved in a criminal enterprise or operation. Griffis v. State, 356 So. 2d 297 (Fla.1978); In re…
-
The City OF ST. Petersburg Beach v. Jewell, 489 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…est v. State, 351 So. 2d 957 (Fla.1977), and forfeiture statutes should be strictly construed in favor of the party against whom forfeiture is sought, Cabrera v. Department of Natural Resources, 478 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Coleman v. Brandon, 426 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); In re 36’ Uniflite, the “Pioneer I”, 398 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). We need not address whether the use of a fraudulently obtained title certificate or driver’s license to evade arrest could be a violation of section 843.02…
-
Martinez v. Heinrich, 521 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…A 1986). Thus, the evidence supporting judicially sanctioned taking of property must be reasonably clear in the light of the historic policy of courts to abhor forfeiture. See Ferlita v. State, 380 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Coleman v. Brandon, 426 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). To achieve forfeiture of the automobiles the sheriff was charged with the burden of showing that the automobiles “facilitated” the commission of a felony. In re Forfeiture of One 1976 Chevrolet Corvette, VIN 1Z37L6541240, 442 So…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Thayer v. State, 335 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1976)
- Elbert Bryan Griffis, III v. State, 356 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1978)
- King v. State, 404 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- State v. Peters, 401 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Caivano v. State of Fla. & Collier Cnty., 331 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)