CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ONE 1980 PORSCHE 911 SC, VEHICLE ID # 91A0140918, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1983-02-11
No. 82-1424
OTT, C.J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.
426 So. 2d 1260 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1983)

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.

Synopsis

The City of Clearwater sought forfeiture of a Porsche allegedly used to facilitate marijuana sales under Florida's Contraband Forfeiture Act. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of forfeiture, holding that the vehicle's use in transporting the defendant to the airport was only remotely incidental to the drug transaction and did not constitute the requisite 'facilitation' or 'aiding and abetting' under the statute.


Holding

The court held that even assuming the Porsche was used in part of the journey to North Dakota, such use was only remotely incidental to the sale of marijuana and did not constitute the requisite facilitation or aiding and abetting under the statute, thus forfeiture was improper.


Headnotes

[1] A vehicle is subject to forfeiture under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act if it is used to facilitate the purchase or sale of contraband, including marijuana.

[2] A vehicle is subject to forfeiture if it has been employed in aiding or abetting the commission of a felony.

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

Key Quotes

“Even assuming that there was evidence sufficient to show that the Porsche was used in part of the journey to North Dakota, such use appears to be only remotely incidental to the sale of the marijuana.”

Establishes the court's central reasoning that peripheral use of a vehicle for transportation is insufficient to constitute facilitation.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Raymond Mayer, who used a Porsche titled to John Hoyt, was under surveillance for suspected drug activity. In December 1981, Mayer drove to Tampa Inte…

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.


Opinion of the Court
LEHAN, Judge.

LEHAN, Judge.

The City of Clearwater appeals an order denying its petition for forfeiture of a vehicle allegedly used to facilitate the sale of marijuana. We affirm.

Title to the Porsche was in the name of John Hoyt, who the City alleged was a nonexistent person. The car was driven by Raymond Mayer and parked at his Clear-water residence while Mayer was under surveillance and investigation for suspicion of illegal drug activity.

In mid-December, 1981, Mayer made arrangements to sell marijuana to a North Dakota undercover policeman. On December 27, 1981, Mayer flew to Fargo, North Dakota, apparently via Atlanta, Georgia, and Washington, D.C. Two days later, Mayer met with the undercover policeman and took him to get the marijuana. Another man had brought the marijuana in a rental trailer. Mayer and the other man were arrested for delivery of marijuana and conspiracy to deliver marijuana.

According to airline tickets which were found in Mayer’s possession during post-arrest searches, Mayer’s trip to North Dakota had originated at Tampa International Airport. On December 30, 1981, the Porsche was located at the Tampa airport and seized by the Clearwater Police Department. An inventory search of the car revealed several articles with Mayer’s name on them, including a motor club card in his name, several repair receipts for the car signed by Mayer or Hoyt, and traffic warnings and citations for the Porsche signed by Mayer. Also found were an address book containing the name and phone number of the North Dakota undercover policeman and a handwritten note with the name and location of the store which rented the trailer used to haul the marijuana. No marijuana or other contraband was found in the Porsche.

On April 2, 1982, the City of Clearwater filed a petition for rule to show cause and for final order of forfeiture asking the court to give title to the Porsche to the City pursuant to sections 932.701 to 932.704, Florida Statutes (1981) (“The Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act”). After a hearing, the trial court denied the forfeiture request. This appeal followed.

Section 932.702(3), Florida Statutes (1981), makes it unlawful to use any motor vehicle to facilitate the purchase or sale of any contraband article, which includes marijuana. In addition, section 932.701(2)(e) defines contraband to include a vehicle which has been employed in aiding or abetting in the commission of a felony. Under either of these circumstances, the vehicle is subject to forfeiture pursuant to section 932.703(1). The issue here is whether the Porsche was in fact used to facilitate or to aid and abet the sale of the marijuana. Even assuming that there was evidence sufficient to show that the Porsche was used in part of the journey to North Dakota, such use appears to be only remotely incidental to the sale of the marijuana. The criminal activity was not proved to have dependence upon the use of the Porsche. We believe that any other ruling by the trial court under the particular circumstances of this case would have passed beyond the outer limits of the terms “facilitate” and “aiding or abetting.” The holding of In re Forfeiture of 1979 Toyota Corolla Automobile, 424 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), under the facts of that case is clearly distinguishable.

AFFIRMED.

OTT, C.J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw