In re Forfeiture of the Following Described Prop.: 1969 Chevrolet Camaro Bearing '75 Massachusetts License Tag 372-766 Vin 124379N511693, 334 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Forfeiture of the Following Described Prop.: 1969 Chevrolet Camaro Bearing '75 Massachusetts License Tag 372-766 Vin 124379N511693, 334 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
green Positive treatment 0 red 0 yellow 3 green 0 procedural ▼
Sample citers
Cited as authority Smith v. Hindery
1984-07-25 · phrase: ""
"…The predecessor to the present statute, section 943.43, Florida Statutes (1979), provided that if a vehicle has been or is being used for certain described criminal purposes, such vehicle "shall" be seized and " may be forfeited." This stat…"
Cited Mosley v. State Ex Rel. Broward Cty.
1978-10-11 · phrase: "see"
"…See Nichols v. State, 356 So.2d 933 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1978). [5] In re Forfeiture of 1969 Chevrolet Camaro, 334 So.2d 82 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976); In re Forfeiture of 1972 Porsche, 307 So.2d 451 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975). [6] Section 943.42(3), Florida St…"
Cited as authority Nichols v. State
1978-03-31 · phrase: ""
"…NOTES [1] Two recent district court of appeal decisions have indicated that forfeiture is a drastic remedy that should be applied only to those persons "significantly involved in a criminal enterprise." In re Forfeiture of 1969 Camaro, 334 …"
Syfertize v1: red = negative treatment, yellow = caution, green = positive treatment, procedural = cert/review/rehearing denied (no substantive interpretation). Flag is the strongest substantive signal across all citers; counts show the breakdown.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re Forfeiture of the Following Described Property: 1969 CHEVROLET CAMARO BEARING '75 MASSACHUSETTS LICENSE TAG 372-766 VIN 124379N511693
No. 75-1737.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jun 22, 1976.
Published opinion
334 So. 2d 82
1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14559
Richard E Gerstein, State’s Atty., and Milton Robbins, Asst. State’s Atty., for appellant., Robert A. Bertisch and Scott T. Eber, Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc., Miami, for appellee.
Haverfield, Hendry, Pearson.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The State of Florida appeals from an order directing that Paul Costigliola’s automobile be returned to him.

Pursuant to § 943.43, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. the police seized Paul Costigliola’s automobile when he was arrested for possession of marijuana while in his automobile. Mr. Costigliola pled guilty to the charge and as a first offender was placed on probation. The police refused to return his automobile and the State petitioned for a rule to show cause why the car should not be forfeited pursuant to § 943.44, F.S. After hearing, the trial judge ordered the vehicle returned to Mr. Costigliola. The State appeals. We affirm.

Forfeitures are not favored in law or equity General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. State, 152 Fla. 297, 11 So.2d 482 (1943). Further, as forfeiture statutes[*83] are intended to apply to those individuals who are significantly involved in a criminal enterprise, § 943.43, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., authorizing forfeitures, is discretionary and not mandatory. See In re 1972 Porsche 2 Dr., '74 Fla.Lic.Tag ID 91780, Fla.App.1975, 307 So.2d 451.

It is apparent from the transcript that through plea negotiations, the State accepted a guilty plea to posession of marijuana, a misdeameanor offense under § 893.13(1) (f), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in ordering return of Mr. Costigliola’s automobile to him.

Affirmed.