IN RE FORFEITURE OF FORTY-SEVEN VIDEO REDEMPTION GAMES (CHERRYMASTER VIDEO SLOT MACHINES), LABELED WITH LETTERS A TO Z AND NUMBERING # 2 THROUGH # 19, # 30, AND # 32, AND TWENTY-TWO HYPERSHOW VIDEO POKER MACHINES, LABELED WITH THE NUMBERING # 1 TO # 22 AND AN UNKNOWN AMOUNT OF U.S. CURRENCY EXCEEDING $58,885, NVC TECHNOLOGY, INC., JOSEPH ALCANTRA, AIRPORT FOR HIRE, INC., D/B/A NAPLES BINGO, JOHN KAPLAN, AND ROBERT NEBB, D/B/A LIBERTY AMUSEMENTS, APPELLANTS,
v.
DON HUNTER, SHERIFF OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
This case involves the forfeiture of video gambling machines seized by the Sheriff of Collier County. The court affirmed the finding of probable cause for seizing video redemption machines but reversed it for video poker machines, turning on whether the machines operated with an inherent element of chance under Florida's slot machine statute.
The court affirmed the finding of probable cause for the forty-seven video redemption machines because testimony established a sufficient probability that they contained an inherent element of chance. The court reversed the probable cause finding for the twenty-two Hypershow video poker machines because no testimony addressed whether they had an inherent element of chance.
[1] A probable cause standard for property seizure requires a showing of a sufficient probability to warrant a reasonable belief that the property was used in violation of th…
[2] The clear and convincing evidence standard is not required for a probable cause finding in a property seizure case.
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 probable cause standard applies to this seizure of property and only requires a showing of a 'sufficient probability to warrant a reasonable belief' that the property was used in violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act”
Establishes the applicable legal standard for determining probable cause in forfeiture cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Sheriff seized forty-seven Cherrymaster video redemption machines, twenty-two Hypershow video poker machines, and over $58,885 in currency from th…
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 Seizure Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Chief Judge.
The appellants challenge a nonfinal order finding probable cause for the sheriffs seizure of the appellants’ video redemption and video poker machines. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) (permitting review of nonfinal orders that determine “the right to immediate possession of property”). We affirm the order with respect to the video redemption machines but reverse the order with respect to the video poker machines.
At issue is whether the machines operated “by reason of any element of chance” so as tp fall within the definition of a slot machine in section 849.16, Florida Statutes (2000). This case does not involve the clear and convincing evidence standard set forth in Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So. 2d 957, 967 (Fla.1991), which is necessary to prove a prima facie case in a forfeiture proceeding. Rather, the probable cause standard applies to this seizure of property and only requires a showing of a “sufficient probability to warrant a reasonable belief” that the property was used in violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. In re forfeiture of $171,900 in U.S. Currency, 711 So. 2d 1269, 1274 n. 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (emphasis in original). Based on the standard required for a probable cause finding, we affirm the trial court’s order finding probable cause to seize the forty-seven Florida Skill video redemption machines.
With respect to the Florida Skill video redemption machines, the State’s expert witness, Detective Beery, testified that the machine “has an inherent element of chance.” On cross-examination, one of the appellants, Robert Nebb, testified that the video redemption machines operate according to a skill level. However, Nebb admitted, “There’s a chance you would win, just in proportion to the natural odds of how many icons there are. If it has to stop in one of 26 places, the odds are 26 to one if you’re hitting it with no application of skill.” No testimony was presented regarding whether there was an inherent element of chance with respect to the twenty-two Hypershow video poker machines.
In Department of Business & Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco v. Broward Vending, Inc., 696 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), which the appellants rely on, the court reversed an order enjoining the seizure of coin-operated gambling devices. The court stated, “While skill will significantly improve the player’s winning percentage, it does not eliminate the element of chance in the machine itself.” Id. at 852. The Broward Vending court recognized that the machine was “set to play itself and to record a certain win/loss ratio.” Id. Contrary to the appellants’ argument, however, nothing in Broward Vending would require that particular proof for a probable cause determination.
Here, the testimony provided a sufficient probability to warrant a reasonable belief that there was an element of chance inherent in the Florida Skill machines. We affirm the trial court’s order as to the finding of probable cause as to the forty-seven Florida Skill video redemption machines and reverse the probable cause finding as to the twenty-two Hypershow video poker machines.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
GREEN and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Forfeiture OF: 1994 Ford Explorer v. Grantland, 203 So. 3d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…standard applicable at the seizure stage requires only “a showing of a ‘sufficient probability to warrant a reasonable belief that the property was used in violation of the ... Forfeiture Act.” In re Forfeiture of Forty-Seven Video Redemption Games, 799 So. 2d 221, 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (emphasis omitted) (quoting In re Forfeiture of $171,900 in U.S. Currency, 711 So. 2d 1269, [*994] 1274 n. 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)). The required showing is something “less than a prima facie case, but more than a mere suspicion…
-
Gator Coin II, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't OF Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 254 So. 3d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…oin inserted in the machine if the player does not, within twenty seconds after it is shown, correctly answer an unpredictable question posed by the machine and not known to, or controlled by, the player"); In re Forty-Seven Video Redemption Games , 799 So. 2d 221, 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (deciding whether certain "machines operated 'by reason of any element of chance' so as to fall within the definition of a slot machine in section 849.16" and finding that "the testimony provided a sufficient probability to w…
-
Brevard Cnty. Sheriff's Off. v. Brown, 208 So. 3d 1281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…sed in violation of the ... Forfeiture Act.’” In re Forfeiture of 1994 Ford Explorer, Identification No. 1FMCU22XXRUC62178, 203 So. 3d 992, 993-94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (emphasis omitted) (quoting In re Forfeiture of Forty-Seven Video Redemption Games, 799 So. 2d 221, 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Because Brevard presented sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that there was methamphetamine in the Corvette, it is entitled to the presumption found in section 932.703(4). The presumption states in relevant part…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dep't OF LAW Enf't v. Real Prop., 588 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1991)
- In re Forfeiture OF ONE Hundred Seventy-One Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($171, 711 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- State v. Broward Vending, Inc., 696 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)