FRANK WANICKA, SHERIFF OF LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ONE (1) 1979 FORD BRONCO, FLORIDA TAG #WVB-347, VIN #U15HLEE2252, 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.
Sheriff Wanicka appealed the denial of a petition for forfeiture of a 1979 Ford Bronco under Florida's Contraband Forfeiture Act. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a vehicle may only be forfeited for transporting contraband if possession of that contraband constitutes a felony, and that the state failed to establish the requisite nexus between the vehicle and drugs found in a house.
A vehicle may be forfeited only if possession of the contraband constitutes a felony. The state failed to establish probable cause of a nexus between the vehicle and the drugs in the house; mere suspicion that the vehicle was used in connection with drug activity is insufficient to justify forfeiture.
[1] A vehicle may be subject to forfeiture under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act only if the possession of the contraband constitutes a felony.
[2] Forfeiture of a vehicle requires a showing of reasonable cause, and mere suspicion of involvement in criminal activity is insufficient to establish probable cause.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“there may be forfeiture of a vehicle for transporting, concealing or possessing a contraband substance only if possession of the contraband constitutes a felony”
Establishes the central holding that forfeiture requires a felony amount of contraband
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 observed a vehicle parked in front of a residence containing a substantial amount of cocaine and heroin where a narcotics sal…
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 Petition For Rule To Show Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
The state appeals from a denial of a petition for rule to show cause in this forfeiture action brought pursuant to sections 932.701-704, Florida Statutes (1981). We affirm. The trial court correctly denied the petition. The state failed to show that the vehicle contained a felony amount of contraband substance so as to show reasonable cause for forfeiture under sections 932.701-704 (the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act).
The state argues that certain portions of the act, when read in isolation, may be construed as justifying forfeiture of a vehicle containing less than a felony amount of contraband.
We disagree and hold that there may be forfeiture of a vehicle for transporting, concealing or possessing a contraband substance only if possession of the contraband constitutes a felony. City of Clearwater v. Malick, 429 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Naples Police Department v. Small, 426 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); State v. Peters, 401 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
The legislature amended section 932.703(1), formerly section 943.43(1), in 1980. The current statute provides that a vehicle is subject to forfeiture when the possession of the contraband article constitutes a felony. Because the language referring to a “felony” was added when the statute was amended, we must presume that the legislature intended that the language be given effect. Legislative intent is determined from the statute in pari mate-ria, and every part of the statute must be given effect. State v. Gale Distributors, 349 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla.1977).
The state also argues that forfeiture was proper because the vehicle had been seen parked in front of, and the driver of the vehicle had been seen to approach, a residence which contained a substantial amount of cocaine and heroin and where a narcotics sale had been made recently.
However, there was no probable cause shown of any nexus between the vehicle and the drugs in the house so as to justify forfeiture under section 932.701(2)(e). See City of Clearwater v. One 1980 Porsche, 426 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Although the state showed that the law enforcement officers suspected that the vehicle was used in connection with the drug activity in the house, mere suspicion is not enough to establish the requisite probable cause. See United States v. One 1975 Chevrolet, 495 F.Supp. 737, 740 (W.D.Mich.1980).
AFFIRMED.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOON-OVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hales v. State, 487 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…because it has been used as an instrumentality in the commission of a felony. Crawford v. Sheriff of Orange County, 441 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Mere suspicion is not enough to support a forfeiture. Wanicka v. One (1) 1979 Ford Bronco, Etc., 432 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Accordingly, the judgment forfeiting the Kenworth tractor truck as contraband is reversed. HERSEY, C.J., and WALDEN, J., concur.…
-
State v. Azqueriz, 485 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…am v. Brescher, 468 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); In re Forfeiture of 1974 Ford Pickup Truck, 462 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); In re Forfeiture of a Cessna 421 Aircraft, 450 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Wanicka v. One (1) 1979 Ford Bronco, 432 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Mason v. Martino, 336 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Elmore v. Palmer First National Bank and Trust Co. of Sarasota, 221 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). Therefore, the amended final judgment appealed is affirmed. Affirmed. . Th…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Gale Distribs., Inc., 349 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1977)
- State v. Peters, 401 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- In re Forfeiture of the Following Described Prop.: ONE 1976 Dodge VAN v. Malick, 429 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- In re Forfeiture of the Following Described Prop.: 1973 Buick: Fla. Tag No. GVM-847 v. Small, 426 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Bennett v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Sarasota Cnty., 426 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)