City of Melbourne v. Gervais

896 So. 2d 972, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 4529, 2005 WL 735900
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 1, 2005
DocketNo. 5D04-1987
StatusPublished

This text of 896 So. 2d 972 (City of Melbourne v. Gervais) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Melbourne v. Gervais, 896 So. 2d 972, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 4529, 2005 WL 735900 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

'' PLEUS, J.

The orders finding no probable cause for seizure of the appellee/claimant’s property (electronic video machines, gift cards and $17,354.50 in currency) and directing return' of said property to her are reversed based upon the following holdings:

First, the City carried its burden at the hearing below of showing probable cause to bélieve that the subject property constituted illegal gambling devices and paraphernalia as per sections 849.15, 849.16 and 932.701(2)(a)2, Florida Statutes;

Second, the “arcade” exception contained in section 849.161(l)(a)l, Florida Statutes, for coin-operated amusement games has no application to the instant machines which operate solely upon insertion of dollar bills; and

Third, sections 849.16 and 849.161 are not unconstitutionally vague. See Delorme v. State, 895 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); State v. Cyphers, 873 So.2d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

The cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

■ REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SHARP, W. and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Delorme v. State
895 So. 2d 1252 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
State v. Cyphers
873 So. 2d 471 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
896 So. 2d 972, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 4529, 2005 WL 735900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-melbourne-v-gervais-fladistctapp-2005.