IN RE FORFEITURE OF $21,650.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY AND MISCELLANEOUS JEWELRY
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 state failed to present sufficient, clear and convincing evidence that the cash was to be used in furtherance of a criminal enterprise.
A police officer discovered $21,650 in a briefcase in the trunk of a vehicle. A drug dog alerted to the briefcase, but no drugs were found.…
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 Civil Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this civil forfeiture case, the only question we address is whether there was sufficient, clear and convincing evidence that a large sum of cash was to be used in furtherance of a criminal enterprise, or whether there was an entitlement to a directed verdict as a matter of law. The trial judge ruled it was a jury question. We reverse.
The sum of $21,650 was discovered by a police officer in a briefcase located in the trunk of a vehicle.1 In Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So. 2d 957, 968 (Fla.1991), our Supreme Court held that the government may not take an individual’s property through forfeiture proceeding unless it proves by no less than clear and convincing evidence that the property being forfeited was being used in furtherance of a criminal enterprise. Here, we believe that the state did not satisfy that burden of proof. The record shows that there was no evidence presented by the state establishing a nexus between the money and any criminal activity. Although a police drug dog alerted to the briefcase, no drugs were found in it.
We considered the Third District’s decision in Fletcher v. Metro Dade Police Department Law Enforcement Trust Fund, 593 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), in which a forfeiture of $55,000 was upheld. We easily distinguish that case because there was evidence of criminal activity transacted from Fletcher’s business premises. This evidence was secured through a properly executed search warrant on Fletcher’s business where large quantities of narcotics were seized. No such criminal conduct was produced by the state in the present case.
REVERSED.
LETTS, J., and WALDEN, JAMES H., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judges, concur. . We need not address the stop of the vehicle or the validity of the consented-to search.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beary v. GAY, 732 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…raband. See id. Contraband is defined as property that has been used in the furtherance of a criminal enterprise. See § 932.701(2)(a)5, Fla. Stat. (1993); see also In re Forfeiture of $21,650.00 in United States Currency and Miscellaneous Jeivel-ry, 605 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Currency which was used, is being used, was attempted, or is intended to be used “in violation of any provision of Florida’s Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act” is contraband. See In re Forfeiture of $37,388.00,…
-
In re Forfeiture OF 1989 Isuzu Pickup Truck, 612 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…perty being forfeited was used in the commission of a crime.” Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So. 2d 957, 968 (Fla. 1991). See also Jenkins v. City of Pensacola, 602 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); In re Forfeiture of $21,650.00, 605 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); In re Forfeiture of $8,489.00, 603 So. 2d 96, 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). One having an interest in the property subject to forfeiture may defeat a forfeiture action as to his or her interest by showing, by a preponderance of the evi…
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF LAW Enf't v. Real Prop., 588 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1991)
- Fletcher v. Metro Dade Police Dep't LAW Enf't Tr. Fund, 593 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)