ANTHONY MARLOW, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF 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.
Florida appellate court reversed denial of defendant's motion for return of seized personal property, holding that his motion was facially sufficient and remanding for an evidentiary hearing on ownership and lawful seizure.
A motion for return of seized property is facially sufficient when the defendant alleges the property is exclusively his own, not contraband or fruit of criminal activity, and not being held as evidence.
[1] A motion for return of seized property is facially sufficient when the defendant alleges the property is exclusively his own, not contraband or fruit of criminal activity…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“that the property was exclusively his or her own, that it was not contraband or the fruit of criminal activity, and that it was not being held as evidence or by similar lawful justification”
Brown v. State standard for facially sufficient motion for return of seized property
Anthony Marlow was arrested in December 2010 and personal property was seized. Marlow filed a motion for return of the property, which the trial court…
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 Motion For Return Of Seized Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Anthony Marlow appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for the return of personal property, which was seized after he was arrested in December 2010. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Contrary to the State’s position, Mar-low’s motion was facially sufficient. He alleged that the seized property was his own, that it was neither contraband nor the fruit of criminal activity, and that it was not being held as evidence. See Brown v. State, 613 So.2d 569, 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (holding that a facially sufficient motion for the return of seized property is one in which the defendant alleges “that the property was exclusively his or her own, that it was not contraband or the *1240fruit of criminal activity, and that it was not being held as evidence or by similar lawful justification”). Therefore, we reverse the denial of Marlow’s motion for return of personal property, and remand for an evidentiary hearing where the defendant must “prove the property is exclusively his own, that it was not the fruit of illegal activity, and that it is not being held for evidentiary purposes.” Sanchez v. State, 88 So.3d 389, 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). If the motion is granted, the State shall exercise reasonable diligence to determine whether the property is in the possession of the North Miami Beach Police Department or any other law enforcement agency.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 613 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Sanchez v. State, 88 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)