FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
FORFEITURE OF 2002 FORD F-350 PICKUP TRUCK, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEE
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 First District reversed the trial court's finding of no probable cause for vehicle forfeiture under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, holding that the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing was legally sufficient to establish probable cause that the owner knew or should have known the vehicle was being used in criminal activity.
The evidence presented at the adversarial preliminary hearing was legally sufficient to establish probable cause that the vehicle owner knew or should have known the property was being employed or likely to be employed in criminal activity under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.
[1] Under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, establishment of probable cause requires a preliminary showing that the owner knew or should have known after reasonable inqu…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Highway Safety sought forfeiture of a 2002 Ford F-350 pickup truck under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. The trial court foun…
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 Vehicle Forfeiture cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the trial court’s order holding that appellant “failed to establish probable cause to believe that the owner of the vehicle knew or should have known after reasonable inquiry that the vehicle was being employed or likely to be employed in criminal activity” in violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act (§§ 932.701-932.707, Fla.Stat.(2004)). Whether the facts presented are legally sufficient to support a finding of probable cause pursuant to the Act is reviewed de novo. City of Coral Springs v. Forfeiture of 1997 Ford Ranger Pickup Truck, 803 So. 2d 847, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). We have held that “establishment of ‘probable cause to believe that the property was ... used in violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act’ requires, among other things, a preliminary showing of a basis for belief that the owner knew, or should have known after a reasonable inquiry, that the property was being employed or was likely to be employed in criminal activity.” In re Forfeiture of 1993 Lexus ES 300, 798 So. 2d 8, 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Our review of the record satisfies us that the evidence presented at the adversarial preliminary hearing was more than sufficient, as a matter of law, to satisfy that requirement.
The Order Finding No Probable Cause is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
ERVIN, WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Forfeiture OF $26, 172 So. 3d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…sufficient to support a finding of probable cause pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, Sections 932.701-932.707, Florida Statutes (2013), is reviewed de novo. Fla. Dept. of Highway Safety v. Forfeiture of 2002 Ford F-350 Pickup Truck, 905 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). As stated in City of Coral Springs v. Forfeiture of 1997 Ford Ranger Pickup Truck, 803 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002): The determination of probable cause involves the question of whether the information relied upon by the sta…
Authorities Cited
- In re Forfeiture OF A 1993 Lexus ES 300 v. Karr, 798 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- City OF Coral Springs v. Forfeiture OF A 1997 Ford Ranger Pickup Truck VIN# 1FTCR10A4VTA62475 FL TAG 3U16BDE, 803 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)