IN RE FORFEITURE OF 1986 ROLLS ROYCE VIN # SCAZN42ACGC X15256. PUBSCO, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, 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.
A vehicle is not subject to forfeiture if its use is only remotely incidental to the underlying crime.
A company vehicle operated by its principal officer struck and injured a pedestrian, and the driver fled the scene without rendering aid. The state pe…
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 Instrumentalities Of Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal, the appellant challenges the forfeiture of a Rolls Royce titled to Pubsco, Inc. and operated by James A. Pell, the principal officer of the company. Pell struck and injured a pedestrian. Without rendering aid or assistance, Pell left the scene of the accident. The state petitioned for forfeiture of the vehicle arguing that it was used as an instrumentality in the commission of, or aiding or abetting in the commission of, the felony offense of leaving the scene of an accident. The trial court entered a final judgment of forfeiture finding that the vehicle was a contraband article employed as an instrumentality.
We disagree with the trial court’s ruling. Recently, the supreme court in City of Edgewood v. Williams, 556 So. 2d 1390 (Fla.1990), held that a vehicle is not subject to forfeiture where it is “only remotely incidental” to the underlying crime. The use of the Rolls Royce here was not closely related to the commission of the criminal act. How Pell left the scene had nothing to do with the offense.
Accordingly, we find that the vehicle cannot be deemed to be an instrumentality in the commission of a felony. The final judgment of forfeiture is, therefore, reversed.
REVERSED.
LETTS, DELL and STONE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Forfeiture OF 1989 Chrysler Lebaron VIN 1C3XJ45K7K266417, 600 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of In re Forfeiture of 1986 Rolls Royce, 564 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied sub nom. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Pubsco, Inc., 576 So. 2d 286 (Fla.1990), and rev. denied, 576 So. 2d 287 (Fla.1990). POLEN, GARRETT and FARMER, JJ., concur.…
-
In re Forfeiture OF 1987 Volkswagon FOX 2-Door, 572 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See In re Forfeiture of 1986 Rolls Royce, 564 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially with opinion.…
-
In re Forfeiture OF ONE 1983 Nissan 280 ZX Auto., 599 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…nying its petition because the Nissan transported, concealed or possessed the property appellee obtained by credit card fraud. The city distinguishes City of Edgewood v. Williams, 556 So. 2d 1390 (Fla.1990), and In re Forfeiture of 1986 Rolls Royce, 564 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 576 So. 2d 287 (Fla.1990), on this basis. The city reasons that the trial court drew an erroneous conclusion that because appellee could have walked, ridden a bicycle, or taken a city bus to and from the Galleria, the Ni…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Edgewood v. Williams, 556 So. 2d 1390 (Fla. 1990)