STEVE AHNEN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Steve Ahnen appealed a restitution order requiring him to reimburse a theft victim $1,250. The court affirmed the restitution for the stolen property itself but reversed the portion requiring reimbursement of the victim's private investigator fees, finding insufficient causal connection between the crime and that expense.
The court held that restitution for private investigator fees was improper because there was insufficient causal connection between the crime and this incidental expense. The remainder of the restitution award for the stolen property itself was affirmed.
[1] Restitution may be awarded under section 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1987), only when there is a significant relationship between the crime committed and the damages su…
[2] The causation element for restitution is akin to the proximate causation required in tort law.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Before restitution may be awarded under section 775.-089(1), Florida Statutes (1987), there must be a significant relationship between the crime committed and the damages sustained, plus proof that the defendant's conduct directly or indirectly caused the loss.”
Establishes the legal standard for awarding restitution under Florida law, requiring both causal connection and foreseeability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAhnen was charged with stealing electronic equipment and other property from Leroy Heiden. At a restitution hearing, Heiden testified that he paid a p…
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 Foreseeability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Steve Ahnen appeals an order of the circuit court assessing restitution in the amount of $1,250.00. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Ahnen was charged with stealing electronic equipment and other property belonging to Leroy Heiden. A hearing was conducted to determine the exact amount of restitution due. In addition to estimating the value of the stolen items, Mr. Heiden stated that he had paid a private investigator $621.00 to locate his missing property because he believed the sheriff’s department had been “suppressing evidence and concealing information.” This sum was included within the award of $1,250.00.
We agree that it was error to order Ahnen to reimburse Mr. Heiden for the private investigator’s fee. Before restitution may be awarded under section 775.-089(1), Florida Statutes (1987), there must be a significant relationship between the crime committed and the damages sustained, plus proof that the defendant’s conduct directly or indirectly caused the loss. State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla.1988). This element of causation has been likened to the proximate causation required in tort between a tortious act and the resulting damage. Arling v. State, 559 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
In Arling this court approved restitution for attorney’s fees incurred by a theft victim, finding it reasonably foreseeable to a person dealing in stolen goods that legal action might be necessary to determine the lawful owner of stolen goods. But see State v. O’Brien, 96 Or.App. 498, 774 P. 2d 1109, rev. denied, 308 Or. 466, 781 P. 2d 1214 (1989). On the other hand, a burglary victim’s travel expenses, incurred in re turning home from out of town to attend to the damage to her property, were held not sufficiently foreseeable to merit reimbursement under the statute. Cliburn v. State, 510 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). In the present case, even assuming Mr. Heiden’s suspicions were justified — certainly not determinable from the limited record before us — such an incidental cost would be only remotely the result of Ahnen’s criminal activity, and not reasonably foreseeable by Ahnen.
The remainder of the restitution award, some of which is not disputed on appeal, is supported by the evidence and applicable case law and therefore affirmed. We remand this case to the circuit court with instructions to modify its order consistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Glaubius v. State, 688 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1997)…tigative costs incurred by a victim are a proper item for restitution. In reaching its decision, the district court certified conflict with Powell v. State, 595 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 601 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1992), and Ahnen v. State, 565 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), wherein the First and Second Districts reached a contrary result. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed, we approve that portion of the district court’s opinion holding that reasonable inv…1 / 2
-
Powell v. State, 595 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…(Fla. 1st DCA), review dismissed, 562 So. 2d 347 (Fla.1990); O’Conner v. State, 587 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). See also Barkley v. State, 585 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Smith v. State, 590 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). In Ahnen v. State, 565 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), in circumstances similar to those in this case, the victim hired a private investigator to locate his stolen property, because he believed the sheriff’s office had suppressed evidence and concealed information. The court held the…
-
Hodge v. State, 603 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…indirectly, if not directly, by the appellant’s offense. There is a significant relationship between that loss and the crime, State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla.1988), and we think it would be illogical to conclude otherwise. In Ahnen v. State, 565 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), and Powell v. State, 595 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), investigative costs incurred by the victim were held not to be a loss caused by the offense, and thus not proper for restitution. We think those cases, in which the investi…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1988)
- Cliburn v. State, 510 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Arling v. State, 559 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)