IN RE FORFEITURE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: ONE 1993 DODGE INTREPID, VIN: 2B3ED56TPH503198 TEMP FL TAG: 1040143; AND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEEN DOLLARS ($117.00) IN U.S. CURRENCY, CITY OF TAMPA POLICE DEPARTMENT, APPELLANT,
v.
SAMUEL ACOSTA, 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 Tampa Police Department appealed a trial court's denial of forfeiture of a 1993 Dodge Intrepid valued at $21,339 that was used to drive to a location where the driver purchased $20 worth of crack cocaine. The court affirmed, holding that forfeiting the vehicle would constitute an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.
Forfeiture of the vehicle would constitute an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. The trial court properly applied a multi-factor approach approved by the Supreme Court in assessing whether a forfeiture is excessive.
[1] The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to civil and remedial forfeitures used to exact punishment.
[2] The Supreme Court has held that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to forfeitures.
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“the vehicle was used in violation of section 932.702, Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), to purchase cocaine”
establishes the factual basis for the forfeiture action
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSamuel Acosta drove a recently purchased 1993 Dodge Intrepid valued at $21,339 to a location where he purchased $20 worth of crack cocaine. The Tampa …
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 Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
The Tampa Police Department appeals a final judgment denying, the forfeiture of a Dodge Intrepid used to drive to a location where the driver purchased $20 worth of crack cocaine. The trial court found that the forfeiture of the recently purchased $21,-339.00 Dodge would constitute an excessive fine. We affirm.
The complaint for forfeiture alleged that the vehicle was used in violation of section 932.702, Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), to purchase cocaine. The Supreme Court recently held that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to forfeitures which are used to exact punishment notwithstanding that the forfeitures are civil and remedial in purpose. See Austin v. United States, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993); Alexander v. United States, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2766, 125 L.Ed.2d 441 (1993). The Court left to the lower courts the choice of criteria to be used in determining whether a forfeiture is excessive. Austin, — U.S. at-, 113 S.Ct. at 2812.
We affirm the denial of forfeiture based on the trial court’s conclusion that the forfeiture would violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Although we do not necessarily agree with the reasoning of the trial court, we are satisfied that the trial court applied the multi-factor approach approved in Austin and considered some of the factors used by other courts in considering this issue.1
Affirmed.
FRANK, C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur. . See U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Property Located at 9638 Chicago Heights, St. Louis, Mo., 27 F. 3d 327 (8th Cir.1994); U.S. v. One Single Family Residence Located at 18755 North Bay Road, Miami, 13 F. 3d 1493, 1498 (11th Cir.1994); U.S. v. Real Property Located at 1215 Kelly Road, Bellingham, Washington, its Buildings, Appurtenances, Attachments, Improvements, and Easements, 860 F.Supp. 764 (W.D.Wash. 1994); U.S. v. Certain Real Property Located at 2408 Parliament, Sterling Heights, Macomb County, Michigan, Together With All of Its Fixtures, Improvements, and Appurtenances, 859 F.Supp. 1075 (E.D.Mich.1994); U.S. v. One Parcel Property Located at 427 and 429 Hall Street, Montgomery, Montgomery County, Ala., 853 F.Supp. 1389 (M.D.Ala.1994); U.S. v. Certain Real Property Located at 11869 West-shore Drive, Putnam Tp., Livingston County, Mich., 848 F.Supp. 107 (E.D.Mich.1994); U.S. v. Real Property Located at 6625 Zumirez Drive, Malibu, Cal., 845 F.Supp. 725 (C.D.Cal.1994); U.S. v. Real Property Known and Numbered as 429 South Main Street, New Lexington, Ohio, 843 F.Supp. 337 (S.D.Ohio 1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Forfeiture OF: 1990 Chevrolet Blazer v. City OF Tarpon Springs, 684 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…ections 932.701 — 932.707, Florida Statutes (Supp.1992), which is similar to the federal statute at issue in Austin. We have previously held that the Austin analysis is applicable to forfeitures under the Florida Act. In re One 1993 Dodge Intrepid, 645 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA1994). While the Austin Court announced that the Excessive Fines Clause could apply to forfeitures, it declined to establish a multifactor test to determine whether any particular forfeiture was excessive. Instead, it decided to allow t…
-
Dep't OF Env't Prot. v. Zabielinski, 785 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…2028, 141 L.Ed.2d 314 (1998)(“[M]odern statutory forfeiture is a ‘fine’ for Eighth Amendment purposes if it constitutes punishment even in part, regardless of whether the proceeding is styled in rem or in personam.”); In re One 1993 Dodge Intrepid, 645 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)(“[T]he Excessive Fines clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to forfeitures which are used to exact punishment notwithstanding the fact that the forfeitures are civil and remedial in. purpose.”)(citing Austin, 509 U.S. at 621-22,…1 / 2
-
Agresta v. City OF Maitland, 159 So. 3d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)….2d 488 (1993). Because provisions of the Act are similar to the provision of 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4), the Austin analysis applies. E.g., In re Forfeiture of 1990 Chevrolet Blazer, 684 So. 2d 197, 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); In re One 1992 Dodge Intrepid, 645 So. 2d 551, 551-52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). To determine if a forfeiture is proportional, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, like most federal courts, has noted that courts must ask: “Given the offense for which the owner is being punished, is the fine[3] (imp…
Authorities Cited
- Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1993)
- Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1993)
- United States v. ONE Single Fam. Residence Located AT 18755 N. BAY Rd., 13 F.3d 1493 (11th Cir. 1994)