JAY PICKARD, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF VERO BEACH, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Excessive Fines Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment holding that appellant’s vehicle was subject to forfeiture after appellant used the vehicle to travel to a drug store to pick up an illegal drug prescription. See Duckham v. State, 478 So. 2d 347 (Fla.1985); In re Forfeiture of 1986 Ford PU, 619 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). However, the parties agree the appellant is still entitled to have the trial court consider his claim that a forfeiture would violate the prohibition on excessive fines contained in the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. See Austin v. United States, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993). We agree.
Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
ANSTEAD, HERSEY and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Scott, 641 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…ess, and the reviewing court will interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustain the trial court’s ruling.” McNamara v. State, 357 So. 2d 410, 412 (Fla.1978); Gilbert v. State, 629 So. 2d 957, 958 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Perez v. State, 536 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Applying that principle, I would affirm the trial court’s order.1 . The lack of reasonable suspicion to justify the stop necessarily demonstrates a lack of probable cause t…
-
Hart v. State, 661 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…made a determination of admissibility, based on the prevailing standard as enunciated in Magaw. Such a factual issue was proper for the county court, and not the circuit court acting in its appellate capacity, to resolve. See, e.g. Gilbert v. State, 629 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The circuit court reached a different conclusion because it attributed more significance to certain facts or testimony than did the county court. [*56] The appellate review afforded by the circuit court in this instance was tanta…
-
Castro v. State, 755 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…le and that the consent was voluntary, based upon the officer’s testimony. It was well within the court’s discretion to evaluate all of the facts and to determine that the officer’s testimony was more credible than appellant’s. Cf. Gilbert v. State, 629 So. 2d 957, 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); State v. Cardosa, 609 So. 2d 152, 153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Alternatively, the appellant argues that the use of a dog (referred to by the police as a K-9 unit) was beyond the scope of any consent given to the officers, relyi…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1993)
- Duckham v. State, 478 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1985)
- In re Forfeiture OF the following described Prop.: 1986 Ford PU 17TH725Y4GNA07879E228128. Harvey Brooks v. Gillum, 619 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)