IN RE FORFEITURE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY, 1972 MERCURY, SERIAL NO. 2H11H539168, FLORIDA LICENSE TAG # 2-114609. JAMES SAMUEL BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
James Brown appealed a judgment forfeiting his 1972 Mercury automobile after police found marijuana in the trunk during a consensual search. The court reversed the forfeiture, holding that under Florida law, vehicle forfeiture for drug-related offenses requires proof of a nexus between the drugs and an illegal drug operation, not merely incidental possession.
Vehicle forfeiture under Sections 943.41-44 is permitted only upon a showing of a nexus between the illegal drugs found in the car and the furtherance of an illegal drug operation. The mere incidental transportation of controlled substances in a vehicle is insufficient to invoke the forfeiture provisions.
[1] A vehicle forfeiture under Florida Statutes Sections 943.41-44 requires a showing of a nexus between illegal drugs found in the car and the furtherance of an illegal drug…
[2] The transportation of a controlled substance in a car that is only incidental to possession is insufficient to invoke forfeiture provisions under Florida Statutes Section…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“a vehicle forfeiture under Sections 943.41-44 is permitted only upon a showing of "a nexus between the illegal drugs found in the car and the furtherance of an illegal drug 'operation'"”
Establishes the legal standard for vehicle forfeiture, requiring connection to a drug operation rather than mere possession
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA Jacksonville Beach police officer received information from a confidential informant that Brown possessed marijuana. The officer observed Brown and …
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 Vehicle Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Acting Chief Judge.
Brown appeals from a judgment ordering the forfeiture of his automobile to the Jacksonville Beach Police Department pursuant to Sections 943.41-44, Florida Statutes (1975). Brown contends that a forfeiture under Sections 943.41-44 is permitted only upon a showing that the automobile was being used in a drug operation or was significantly involved in a criminal enterprise. The State contends this case is controlled by this Court’s decision in Grimm v. State, 305 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
A Jacksonville Beach police officer received information from a confidential informant that Brown was in possession of marijuana. The officer went to Brown’s home where he saw Brown and two men get into the car. The officer followed the car and when it stopped, identified himself and asked if he could search the car. Brown consented to the search. The officer found eight one-ounce baggies of marijuana in the trunk. Brown denied they were his. The automobile was seized pursuant to Section 943.42. The State filed a petition for rule to show cause alleging Brown used the car in violation of Section 943.42. Brown answered denying he used the car in violation of Section 943.42.
The evidence adduced at the hearing was as outlined above. No evidence was adduced that Brown’s car was being used in a drug operation or was significantly involved in a criminal enterprise. No evidence was adduced that Brown knew that the marijuana was in the car. This case is controlled by Griffis v. State, 356 So. 2d 297, Case No. 51,011, Supreme Court of Florida, opinion filed 2 March 1978, not yet reported, which overrules our Grimm case. In Griffis, our Supreme Court held that a vehicle forfeiture under Sections 943.41-44 is permitted only upon a showing of “a nexus between the illegal drugs found in the car and the furtherance of an illegal drug ‘operation’ ”. There was no such showing in this ease. The transportation of a controlled substance in a car which is only incidental to possession, which was the case here, is insufficient to invoke the forfeiture provisions of Sections 943.41-44.
The judgment of forfeiture is reversed.
ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ONE 1978 Lincoln Versailles v. State, 388 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…re possession of contraband is required; there must be a showing of a nexus between “the illegal drugs found in the car and the furtherance of an illegal drug operation.” See also Nichols v. State, 356 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 2d DC A 1978); Brown v. State, 357 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). In ‘the instant case, the State argues Griffis, supra, is distinguishable on its facts in that there one party was arrested and charged with possession of contraband [*1385] while in this case a large drug trafficking operation…
-
In re Forfeiture OF 1979 Ford Truck, 389 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…transport marijuana. In addition, the record contains nothing indicating that McGee knew the methaqualone was in the truck, which was readily accessible to others. Therefore, the truck was not subject to forfeiture. In re Forfeiture of 1972 Mercury, 357 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. HOBSON and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Elbert Bryan Griffis, III v. State, 356 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1978)
- Grimm v. State, 305 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)