STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID MORETTI, 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.
Florida appeals the dismissal of criminal charges against Moretti on double jeopardy grounds. The trial court had dismissed the charges after a civil forfeiture action failed, but the appellate court reversed, holding that civil forfeiture proceedings are not punitive for Double Jeopardy Clause purposes under United States v. Ursery.
Civil forfeiture proceedings do not constitute punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, and therefore a civil forfeiture action does not bar subsequent criminal prosecution for the same conduct.
[1] A civil forfeiture action does not constitute punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
[2] In determining whether a civil forfeiture constitutes punishment, courts apply a two-part test: first, whether the legislature intended the statute to be criminal or civi…
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“the civil forfeitures did not constitute punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause”
Establishes the core holding from Ursery that civil forfeiture proceedings are not punitive under Double Jeopardy doctrine
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMoretti was stopped for speeding and found with approximately 25 grams of marijuana. The State filed a civil forfeiture action against his $23,000 tru…
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 Remedial Purpose cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
The State appeals an order dismissing criminal charges, on double jeopardy grounds, against David Moretti. The State argues that an earlier judgment for Moretti in a civil forfeiture action does not bar prosecution for a criminal offense arising out of the same incident. The trial court did not have the benefit of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Ursery, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996). We reverse.
Moretti was stopped for speeding while driving his 1994 Chevrolet Silverado truck. During a pat-down, the officer found approximately twenty-five grams of marijuana and Moretti was arrested. The State filed a civil forfeiture action, In re 1994 Chevrolet Silverado Truck, circuit court case no. 95-609 CA01, but the lower court refused to forfeit the $23,000 vehicle, concluding that it would constitute an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 17, of the Florida Constitution. Subsequently, Moretti filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charge on double jeopardy grounds, which the trial court granted.
In Ursery, the Supreme Court examined several federal forfeiture statutes and held that the civil forfeitures did not constitute punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Court applied a two-part test: first, whether the legislative body intended the forfeiture statute to be criminal or civil; and second, whether the proceedings are so punitive in fact that they cannot be viewed as a civil proceeding regardless of the legislature’s intent.
In this case, the civil forfeiture was pursued under sections 932.701-932.707, Florida Statutes (1993). After reviewing the statutory provisions in light of Ursery and applying the two-part test, we conclude that Florida’s civil forfeiture statutes do not impose “punishment” for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. See In re Forfeiture of 1986 Pontiac Firebird, 600 So. 2d 1178, 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (noting that “statutory forfeiture provisions are intended to serve a remedial rather than punitive purpose”) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of the criminal charges against Moretti and remand for further proceedings.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chillington v. State, 682 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435,109 S.Ct. 1892,104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989). However, this decision does not preclude our future consideration of other factual circumstances, notwithstanding State v. Moretti, 681 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), whether under the seven factors recited in United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 104 S.Ct. 1099, 79 L.Ed.2d 361 (1984), a forfeiture pursuant to section 932.703, Florida Statutes (1995), could constitute d…
-
State v. Sobieck, 701 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…7, using the RICO statute to elevate the otherwise misdemeanor crimes to a felony. However, pursuant to Ursery, this civil forfeiture proceeding does not impose punishment in the sense of implicating the double jeopardy clause. See State v. Moretti, 681 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); In re Forfeiture of 1986 Pontiac Firebird, Vehicle ID No. 1G2FS87H3GN236562, Florida Tag No. HWK 81Y, 600 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Florida courts view such forfeiture proceedings as independent of any factually related cri…
-
Lusskin v. State, 690 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…st his vehicle in a forfeiture proceeding-arising out of the culpable negligence. This [*613] issue was recently resolved adversely to appellant in United States v. Ursery, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996). See also State v. Moretti, 681 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We have considered the other issues raised by appellant and find them to be without merit. Affirmed. PARIENTE, J., and TAYLOR, CAROLE Y., Associate Judge, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (U.S. 1996)
- In re Forfeiture OF 1986 Pontiac Firebird v. Burgess, 600 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)