WALTER C. HEINRICH, AS SHERIFF OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CLIFTON DARNEL MILLER, 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.
If the sheriff proves the allegations, the vehicle is subject to forfeiture under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.
[1] A trial court errs by dismissing a forfeiture petition with prejudice without allowing the petitioner to present evidence supporting its allegations.
[2] Under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, a motor vehicle is subject to forfeiture if it is used in the furtherance of an illegal drug trafficking operation.
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 intelligenceThe Sheriff petitioned for forfeiture of a vehicle after a detective allegedly received cocaine from the appellee on three occasions within the vehicl…
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 Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
The appellant, Walter C. Heinrich, Sheriff of Hillsborough County, Florida, has appealed an order dismissing his petition for forfeiture of a motor vehicle pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. We find that if the appellant can prove the allegations of his petition, he is entitled to the relief requested, and accordingly, we reverse.
The appellant’s petition and attached affidavit allege that a detective with the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Department, on three separate occasions, received cocaine from the appellee, Clifton Darnel Miller. On each of these occasions, the cocaine was delivered to the detective in the vehicle subject to these forfeiture proceedings.
The appellee’s answer to the petition stated that the vehicle was not significantly involved in the furtherance of an illegal drug trafficking operation, and therefore the forfeiture proceedings should be dismissed.
The trial court, without allowing the appellant to present any evidence supporting the allegations contained in his petition, dismissed the proceedings with prejudice. In the written order, the court assumed that the sheriff could establish all of the allegations contained in his complaint. However, the court ruled that, since the cocaine, 1.6 grams, could have been concealed in a pocket, a coat, or carried around in a paper bag, there was an insufficient nexus between the motor vehicle and the furtherance of an illegal drug trafficking operation.
If the appellant can prove the allegations of his petition, he is entitled to have the motor vehicle forfeited under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. The fact that the cocaine was of such a quantity that it could be carried in the appellee’s pocket, coat, or a paper bag is not material under the current act. Hardcastle v. Kratz, 443 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Naples Police Dept. v. Small, 426 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); State v. Peters, 401 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2d . DCA 1981).
We accordingly reverse and remand for proceedings consistent herewith.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crenshaw v. State, 521 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…e was being used to facilitate a prohibited sale transaction, and “the fact that the cocaine was of such a quantity that it could be carried in the appellee’s [owner’s] pocket, coat, or a paper bag is not material under the act.” Heinrich v. Miller, 444 So. 2d 589 (Fla.2d DCA 1984). Moreover, where small amounts of me-thaqualone were found on the front seat and console of the defendant’s car, as well as on his person, forfeiture was held to be proper on the theory that the vehicle was being used to transport…
-
Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Pollack, 462 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…at the time of the seizure is contraband subject to forfeiture. §§ 932.701, 932.703(1), Fla.Stat. (1981). The fact that a felony amount of a controlled substance was possessed and transported is sufficient to require forfeiture, Heinrich v. Miller, 444 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Malicie; Small, absent a showing of lack of knowledge under section 932.703(2), Florida Statutes (1981). See, e.g., Weisz v. Miami Shores Village, 461 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Pollack, on appeal, tries to bring himself with…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Peters, 401 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- 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)
- In re Forfeiture OF the following described Prop.: 1977 Jeep Cherokee v. Kratz, 443 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)