IN RE FORFEITURE OF A CESSNA 421 AIRCRAFT, REG. NO. N42A
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.
The court held that mere ability to use property for smuggling does not subject it to forfeiture under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.
The Sheriff presented evidence that an aircraft had characteristics common to smuggling planes, including a bladder tank, no passenger seats, travel c…
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 Contraband Article Definition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s order forfeiting appellant’s aircraft to George A. Brescher, Sheriff of Broward County.
The appellee demonstrated at the forfeiture hearing that the aircraft had a bladder tank (which increases fuel capacity and thus flying range), had no passenger seats, contained charts for air travel between Miami, the Bahamas and Columbia, and was registered in the name of a corporation which does not appear in the records of the Florida Secretary of State. A police witness testified that aircraft which smugglers use to import drugs typically have the same characteristics.
For purposes of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, the term “contraband article” includes all controlled substances defined in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. § 932.701(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1981). It is unlawful to use an aircraft to transport, conceal or possess any contraband article, or to use an aircraft to facilitate the transportation, concealment or possession of a contraband article. § 932.702, Fla.Stat. (1981). An aircraft “which has been or is being used in violation of any provision of s 932.-702” shall be seized. § 932.703, Fla.Stat. (1981).
We have carefully reviewed the evidence presented below. Although the appellee proved that this aircraft looks like a smuggling plane, and could have been so used, we find no evidence that it ever had been so used. Mere ability to use property in violation of the act does not subject the property to forfeiture.
REVERSED.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fletcher v. Metro Dade Police Dep't LAW Enf't Tr. Fund, 593 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…d have been used for an impermissible purpose is insufficient to support the forfeiture. The mere ability to use property in violation of the Act does not subject that property to forfeiture. In re Forfeiture of a Cessna 421 Aircraft, Reg. No. N42A, 450 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). In Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So. 2d at 967-68, the Florida Supreme Court stated: [*270] In forfeiture proceedings the state impinges on basic constitutional rights of individuals who may never have bee…
-
State v. Azqueriz, 485 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…s on appeal and we find that no reversible error has been shown. See Doersam v. Brescher, 468 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); In re Forfeiture of 1974 Ford Pickup Truck, 462 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); In re Forfeiture of a Cessna 421 Aircraft, 450 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Wanicka v. One (1) 1979 Ford Bronco, 432 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Mason v. Martino, 336 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Elmore v. Palmer First National Bank and Trust Co. of Sarasota, 221 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). The…