IN RE FORFEITURE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: $160,000.00 UNITED STATES CURRENCY, ET AL. GREGORY CLIFF EVANS, ROBERT KIMBALL ANDERSON AND RANDY LYNN LAWSON, PETITIONERS,
v.
IN RE THE PETITION OF GERARD COLEMAN, SHERIFF OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT, ACTING PARTICIPANTS IN A TASK FORCE KNOWN AS COORDINATED LAW ENFORCEMENT AREA NARCOTICS UNIT (C.L.E.A.N.), RESPONDENTS
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.
This case addresses whether a civil forfeiture trial court can compel discovery responses when those responses might incriminate the claimants in pending criminal charges. The court held that the trial court erred in ordering discovery without protecting claimants' Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
The trial court erred in compelling discovery without protecting the claimants' Fifth Amendment rights. A trial court cannot compel answers to discovery that might incriminate a party; instead, the trial court must limit discovery to questions that do not impinge on Fifth Amendment protection.
[1] A party asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to a request for admissions must demonstrate a real danger of incrimination, not a…
[2] A trial court must apply the correct legal test to determine the validity of a Fifth Amendment privilege assertion in response to discovery requests.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We think that the trial court erred in entering its order compelling petitioner to answer interrogatories on pain of the entry of a default judgment. As petitioner correctly points out, the interception of telephone conversations by electronic or mechanical means carries a criminal as well as a civil penalty. Section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1977). Accordingly, the court cannot compel petitioner to answer respondent's interrogatories as the answers relating to her alleged interception of the telephone conversation might incriminate her.”
Establishes the court's prior holding that discovery cannot be compelled when answers might incriminate the responding party in criminal matters.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThree claimants (Evans, Anderson, and Lawson) sought to recover property seized in a civil forfeiture proceeding under Florida statutes. In addition t…
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 Constitutional Right Against Self-Incrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
Gregory Cliff Evans, Robert Kimball Anderson and Randy Lynn Lawson, claimants below, petition this court for a writ of certiorari to review a trial court order which compels them to submit to discovery through request for admissions and written interrogatories on pain of sanctions being considered by the court. The petitioners argue that to answer all of the propounded interrogatories and request for admissions would violate their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. We agree. Finding that the order departs from the essential requirements of law, we grant the petition and vacate the order. The salient facts of this case are as follows: Petitioners are claimants to property seized by respondents pursuant to sections 932.701-932.704, Florida Statutes (1981). In addition to being claimants in this civil forfeiture proceeding, petitioners are defendants in a pending collateral criminal case.
As required by statute, respondents filed a petition for rule to show cause and for final order of forfeiture. The answer and affirmative defenses that were filed by the petitioners show that the petitioners are actively contesting the respondents’ right to forfeit the seized property.
After filing their answers, the petitioners were served with first interrogatories to claimants and first request for admissions. The petitioners filed responses to the request for admissions and interrogatories basically refusing to answer because the facts and circumstances sought in the discovery requests dealt with the issues involved in the pending criminal charge. The petitioners asserted that to require them to answer the documents would violate their constitutional right against self-incrimination. Subsequently, the respondents filed a motion to test the sufficiency of petitioners’ response and objections to request for admissions and interrogatories and moved for an order compelling discovery. A hearing was held on the respondents’ motion and the order complained of in this petition was entered.
This court has previously addressed the issue of whether the trial court may order a petitioner to submit to discovery on pain of severe sanctions when to answer the discovery request might violate the petitioner’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
In Roberts v. Jardine, 358 So. 2d 588, 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), this court stated:
We think that the trial court erred in entering its order compelling petitioner to answer interrogatories on pain of the entry of a default judgment. As petitioner correctly points out, the interception of telephone conversations by electronic or mechanical means carries a criminal as well as a civil penalty. Section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1977). Accordingly, the court cannot compel petitioner to answer respondent’s interrogatories as the answers relating to her alleged interception of the telephone conversation might incriminate her. U.S. Const. Amend. V; Article I, Section 9, Florida Constitution. .To require the petitioners to submit to discovery by answering all of the questions propounded through the request for admissions and interrogatories might incriminate them. Accordingly, we grant the writ of certiorari and vacate the lower court’s order with instructions to the trial judge to limit discovery by requiring the petitioners to answer only those questions which do not impinge on the petitioners’ Fifth Amendment protection.
CERTIORARI GRANTED.
RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Forfeiture OF $13 v. Eagan, 522 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…privilege against self-incrimination in opposition to a discovery request may not be punished by rendering a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Roberts v. Jardine, 358 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); see also In re Forfeiture of $160,000.00, 444 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Delisi v. Smith, 423 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), review denied, 434 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983); 30 A.L.R. 4th 9 (1984). The final judgment of forfeiture is REVERSED.2 COBB and COWART, JJ., concur. . See Lobo v. Metro-Dade Polic…
-
Amjad Awan v. Dep't OF Revenue, 570 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…), Fla.Stat. (1987). Thus, they are “affirmatively” seeking to disprove the Department’s claim that they are criminals and to avoid the sizable assessment of taxes. The petitioners assert that they are similar to the defendants in Evans v. Coleman, 444 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), who successfully raised the fifth amendment privilege against compelled discovery. We distinguish Evans because, in that forfeiture action, the sheriff had the initial burden of proof and was not entitled to compel the defendants…
Authorities Cited
- Roberts v. Jardine, 358 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)