IN RE FORFEITURE OF TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY-FOUR DOLLARS ($2,454.00) IN U.S. CURRENCY. CITY OF GAINESVILLE, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE D. BELLESHEIM, 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 court held that the trial court applied the correct burden of proof in denying forfeiture of currency.
The City sought forfeiture of currency found in a wallet containing marked money from a prior cocaine purchase, along with cocaine and paraphernalia i…
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 Forfeiture Of Currency cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
The City of Gainesville seeks review of an order by which forfeiture of currency was denied and the City was directed to effect the return of such property. In denying forfeiture the court indicated that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the currency had been utilized in the commission of a felony. The City argues on appeal that the court applied an improper burden of proof. We find no error in this regard and we therefore affirm the order appealed.
The City sought forfeiture of currency discovered during the execution of a search warrant. The money was found in a wallet in appellee’s residence. The wallet also contained marked currency which had been used by the City in a controlled purchase of cocaine the previous day. Cocaine and paraphernalia were found in the residence during the search.
In the proceeding below the City had the initial burden of showing probable cause to believe that the currency was utilized as an instrumentality in the commission of a felony, whereupon the burden would then shift to appellee. See In re: Approximately $48,900.00 in U.S. Currency, 432 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). We conclude that the court did not depart from this standard in assessing the evidence. Cf., Williams v. Miller, 433 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
The order appealed is affirmed.
WIGGINTON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Medious v. Dep't OF Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 534 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…not eliminate the need for its establishment to other items no matter how close in proximity. Otherwise, the nexus requirement would be illusory. See, e.g., In re Forfeiture of Two Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-Four Dollars ($2,454) in U.S. Currency, 503 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The determination of probable cause in a forfeiture proceeding involves the question of whether the information relied upon by the state is adequate and sufficiently reliable to warrant the belief by a reasonable person that a…
-
In re Forfeiture OF $62 v. Fla. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 531 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…on of burden of proof and quantum of evidence required in forfeiture proceedings is as follows: [*356] In re App. 48,900 Dollars in U.S. Currency, 432 So. 2d 1382, 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). See also In re Forfeiture of 2,454 Dollars in US. Currency, 503 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); and Crenshaw v. State, 521 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). [*355] The governmental entity seeking forfeiture bears the initial burden of going forward, but it must only show probable cause that the res subject to forfeiture was…
Authorities Cited
- In re Forfeiture of Approximately Forty-Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($48, 432 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Williams v. Miller, 433 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)