WILDWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT, APPELLANT,
v.
PHILLIP WYATT, SR., 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 Wildwood Police Department appealed a summary judgment denying forfeiture of $25,300 in cash seized from Phillip Wyatt. The court reversed, holding that under Florida's drug forfeiture statute, the source of funds is irrelevant when the government establishes the currency was intended for use in drug transactions.
The source of funds is irrelevant under section 932.701(2)(a); the statute permits forfeiture based on intent to use currency in drug transactions regardless of how the money was legally acquired. An officer's conclusion about intent based on established facts does not require personal knowledge of the suspect's subjective intent.
[1] A statute permitting forfeiture of currency intended to be used in a drug transaction does not require the currency to be illegally obtained.
[2] In a forfeiture proceeding, the source of legally acquired funds is irrelevant when the statute allows forfeiture based on the intended use of the funds in an illegal act…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Although section 932.703, Florida Statutes (1989) only permits forfeiture of property "which has been or is being used in violation" of law, section 932.701(2)(a) relied on herein, permits the forfeiture of "currency ... which ... is intended to be used" in a drug transaction.”
Establishes the distinction between the two statutory provisions and that intent to use, rather than source of funds, governs forfeiture under section 932.701(2)(a).
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWyatt was traveling to Miami with $25,300 cash in denominations and packaging common in drug transactions. He and his son gave conflicting reasons for…
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
HARRIS, Judge.
The Wildwood Police Department appeals the summary judgment denying its forfeiture of $25,300 in cash. The court entered summary judgment on the basis that although “petitioner established probable cause” to require Wyatt to show cause why the funds should not be forfeited, it did not controvert Wyatt’s affidavit that the cash was legally acquired. Because we agree with appellant that the source of the funds, under the statute relied on herein for forfeiture, is irrelevant, we reverse.
Although section 932.703, Florida Statutes (1989) only permits forfeiture of property “which has been or is being used in violation” of law, section 932.701(2)(a) relied on herein, permits the forfeiture of “currency ... which ... is intended to be used” in a drug transaction. It is apparent from the record that appellant was not urging that the cash was illegally obtained, but that it was intended to be used to purchase drugs in Miami. The court improperly focused on the source of the funds.
The trial court also held that the officer’s statement in the affidavit that the money was intended to be used in an illegal narcotics transaction was not based on personal knowledge. How do you ever have personal knowledge of someone else’s intent? 1 The statement was merely the officer’s conclusion based on his previously stated facts. The question before the trial court was whether, based on those uncontested facts, Wyatt was entitled to a summary judgment. These facts included:
1. Wyatt was traveling to Miami with $25,300 cash in denominations and packaged in a way common in drug transactions in the trunk of his car. 2. He and his passenger (his son) gave conflicting reasons for the trip to Miami.
3. Weapons were found in his car (one under the driver’s seat).
4. He was traveling to Miami in the company of a second vehicle, yet denied his knowledge of the second vehicle or its occupants.
5. The right to possession of the second vehicle was in doubt.
6. Small amounts of cocaine were found in the second vehicle.
The court made no ruling on the sufficiency of these facts. It rather decided the issue on the fact that the funds were legally acquired. This was error. REVERSED and REMANDED for further action consistent with this opinion.
GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur. . Brewer v. State, 413 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), rev. denied 426 So. 2d 25 (1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Charles, 606 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…imilar additional facts and circumstances were relied upon by the First District in In re Forfeiture of $62,200 In U.S. Currency, 531 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) in affirming a probable cause finding. See also Wildwood Police Department v. Wyatt, 588 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). At the hearing below, the trial judge expressed concern about possible violation of Kerr’s and Charles’ due process rights because the actual currency seized had been deposited into a bank account (within a few days of its seiz…
Authorities Cited
- Brewer v. State, 413 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)