In re Forfeiture of $21,650.00 in United States Currency & Miscellaneous Jewelry

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In re Forfeiture of $21,650.00 in United States Currency & Miscellaneous Jewelry

605 So. 2d 102, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8390, 1992 WL 183987

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 5, 1992

DocketNo. 91-0302

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 605 So. 2d 102 (In re Forfeiture of $21,650.00 in United States Currency & Miscellaneous Jewelry) 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

In re Forfeiture of $21,650.00 in United States Currency & Miscellaneous Jewelry, 605 So. 2d 102, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8390, 1992 WL 183987 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this civil forfeiture case, the only question we address is whether there was sufficient, clear and convincing evidence that a large sum of cash was to be used in furtherance of a criminal enterprise, or whether there was an entitlement to a directed verdict as a matter of law. The trial judge ruled it was a jury question. We reverse.

The sum of $21,650 was discovered by a police officer in a briefcase located in the trunk of a vehicle.¹ In Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957, 968 (Fla.1991), our Supreme Court held that the government may not take an individual’s property through forfeiture proceeding unless it proves by no less than clear and convincing evidence that the property being forfeited was being used in furtherance of a criminal enterprise. Here, we believe that the state did not satisfy that burden of proof.

[103]*103The record shows that there was no evidence presented by the state establishing a nexus between the money and any criminal activity. Although a police drug dog alerted to the briefcase, no drugs were found in it.

We considered the Third District’s decision in Fletcher v. Metro Dade Police Department Law Enforcement Trust Fund, 593 So.2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), in which a forfeiture of $55,000 was upheld. We easily distinguish that case because there was evidence of criminal activity transacted from Fletcher’s business premises. This evidence was secured through a properly executed search warrant on Fletcher’s business where large quantities of narcotics were seized. No such criminal conduct was produced by the state in the present case.

REVERSED.

LETTS, J., and WALDEN, JAMES H., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judges, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this civil forfeiture case, the only question we address is whether there was sufficient, clear and convincing evidence that a large sum of cash was to be used in furtherance of a criminal enterprise, or whether there was an entitlement to a directed verdict as a matter of law. The trial judge ruled it was a jury question. We reverse.

The sum of $21,650 was discovered by a police officer in a briefcase located in the trunk of a vehicle.¹ In Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957, 968 (Fla.1991), our Supreme Court held that the government may not take an individual’s property through forfeiture proceeding unless it proves by no less than clear and convincing evidence that the property being forfeited was being used in furtherance of a criminal enterprise. Here, we believe that the state did not satisfy that burden of proof.

[103]*103The record shows that there was no evidence presented by the state establishing a nexus between the money and any criminal activity. Although a police drug dog alerted to the briefcase, no drugs were found in it.

We considered the Third District’s decision in Fletcher v. Metro Dade Police Department Law Enforcement Trust Fund, 593 So.2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), in which a forfeiture of $55,000 was upheld. We easily distinguish that case because there was evidence of criminal activity transacted from Fletcher’s business premises. This evidence was secured through a properly executed search warrant on Fletcher’s business where large quantities of narcotics were seized. No such criminal conduct was produced by the state in the present case.

REVERSED.

LETTS, J., and WALDEN, JAMES H., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judges, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

605 So. 2d 102, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8390, 1992 WL 183987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-forfeiture-of-2165000-in-united-states-currency-miscellaneous-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack