Williams v. City of Edgewood

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Williams v. City of Edgewood

541 So. 2d 122, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 699, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1381, 1989 WL 22544

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 16, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1196

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 541 So. 2d 122 (Williams v. City of Edgewood) 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

Williams v. City of Edgewood, 541 So. 2d 122, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 699, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1381, 1989 WL 22544 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinions

GOSHORN, Judge.

Williams appeals an order forfeiting his automobile pursuant to sections 932.701-932.704, Florida Statutes (1987). We reverse.

A law enforcement agency attempting to effectuate a forfeiture must prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the automobile “has been or is actually employed as an instrumentality in the commission of, or in aiding or abetting in the commission of, any felony”. Section 932.-701(2)(e) Florida Statutes (1987). As Judge Zehmer observed in Crenshaw v. State, 521 So.2d 138, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), review granted, Case No. 72,181 (Fla. May 13, 1988).

[S]ome nexus must be found to exist between the occupant’s use of the vehicle and the prohibited criminal conduct beyond what may be characterized as remotely incidental use. (emphasis added)

Williams’ use of his BMW automobile to drive approximately one block to an apartment where he allegedly committed the crime of a lewd and lascivious act on a child can only be considered remotely incidental to his criminal conduct.

REVERSED.

DAUKSCH, J„ concur. COBB, J., concurs specially with opinion.

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