Department of Law Enf. v. Real Property (1991)

But see, Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957 (Fla. 1991), in which the Florida Supreme Court read into the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act procedural requirements to be followed to satisfy constitutional due process rights in the seizure and forfeiture of real and personal property under the act. 22 Section 932.7055 (1), Fla. Stat.

I, § 9, Fla. Const. "Procedural due process serves as a vehicle to ensure fair treatment through the proper administration of justice where substantive rights are at issue." Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991).

See Byrom v. Gallagher, 609 So.2d 24 (Fla.1992); Dep't of Law Enforcement, 588 So.2d at 961 ("In construing the [Florida Contraband Forfeiture] Act, we note that forfeitures are considered harsh exactions, and as a general rule they are not favored either in law or equity."); Town of Oakland v. Mercer, 851 So.2d 266, 269 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ("Due process mandates that the provisions of the forfeiture act be strictly interpreted in favor of the persons being deprived of their…

I, § 9, Fla. Const., and Dep’t Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957, 966 (Fla.1991) (holding that due process requires notice must be given to all persons who the forfeiting authority with reasonable investigation knows may have a legal interest in the subject property).

As our supreme court has held, forfeitures are deemed “harsh exactions” that “are not favored either in law or equity.” Dep’t of Law Enf. v. Real Prop., 588 So. 2d 957, 961 (Fla. 1991) (“[T]his Court has long followed a policy that it must strictly construe forfeiture statutes.”); Cabrera, 478 So. 2d at 455 (“Forfeiture is considered an extraordinarily harsh penalty.”); Williams v. Christian, 335 So. 2d 358, 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (“No citation of authority is required to s…

It “serves as a vehicle to ensure fair treatment through the proper administration of justice where substantive rights are at issue.” Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So. 2d 957, 960 (Fla. 1991).

However, we also recognize that it is less restrictive than physical seizure, see Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So.2d 957, 962 (Fla.1991), and does not affect the immediate possession of the property.

As this Court explained in Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991), "[p]rocedural due process serves as a vehicle to ensure fair treatment through the proper administration of justice where substantive rights are at issue." Procedural due process requires both fair notice and a real opportunity to be heard.

I, § 9, Fla. Const. "Procedural due process serves as a vehicle to ensure fair treatment through the proper administration of justice where substantive rights are at issue." Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991).

"Substantive due process under the Florida Constitution protects the full panoply of individual rights from unwarranted encroachment by the government." Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991).

Keys Citizens for Responsible Gov't, Inc. v. Fla. Keys Aqueduct Auth., 795 So.2d 940, 948 (Fla.2001) (citing Dep't of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991)).

L.B. v. State, 700 So.2d 370 (Fla.1997); Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So.2d 957, 961 (Fla.1991).

It is also well settled that "[p]roperty rights are among the basic substantive rights expressly protected by the Florida Constitution." Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957, 964 (Fla.1991).

As this Court explained in Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991), "[p]rocedural due process serves as a vehicle to ensure fair treatment through the proper administration of justice where substantive rights are at issue." Procedural due process requires both fair notice and a real opportunity to be heard.

As this Court explained in Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991), “[p]rocedural due process serves as a vehicle to ensure fair treatment through the proper administration of justice where substantive rights are at issue.” Procedural due process requires both fair notice and a real opportunity to be heard.

I, § 9, Fla. Const. “The manner in which due process protections apply vary with the character of the interests and the nature of the process involved.” Dep’t of Law Enf’t v. Real Prop., 588 So. 2d 957, 960 (Fla. 1991) (citations omitted).

Any consideration of whether to suspend a license, or whether to stay a suspension pending a hearing, should proceed from the following indisputable premise: “Property rights are among the basic substantive rights expressly protected by the Florida Constitution.” Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So. 2d 957, 964 (Fla. 1991).

Main., 39 So. 3d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So. 2d 957, 964 (Fla. 1991).

See Dep't of Law Enf't v. Real Prop., 588 So. 2d 957, 964 (Fla. 1991) ("Property rights are among the basic substantive rights expressly protected by the Florida Constitution."); Adhin v. First Horizon Home Loans, 44 So. 3d 1245 , 1254 n.6 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (explaining that due process protects the property interests of a subsequent purchaser of mortgaged property); Metro.

However, in general, “[procedural due process requires both fair notice and a real opportunity to be heard.” Id. (citing Dep’t of Law Enf't v. Real Prop., 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla. 1991)); see also Vollmer v. Key Dev.

A person’s substantive due process rights “protect! ] the full panoply of individual rights from unwarranted encroachment by the government.” Id. (quoting Dep’t of Law Enf't v. Real Prop., 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla. 1991)).

Nevertheless, “[procedural due process requires both fair notice and a real opportunity to. be heard.” Id. (citing Dep’t of Law Enf't v. Real Prop., 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991)).

Dept. of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991).

“Property rights are among the basic substantive rights expressly protected by the Florida Constitution.” Dep’t of Law Enf't v. Real Prop., 588 So.2d 957, 964 (Fla.1991) (citing Art.

In general, “[procedural due process serves as a vehicle to ensure fair treatment through the proper administration of justice where substantive rights are at issue.” Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991).

Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991).

The problem with this streamlined process, as the court noted in Real Property , was that it impinged upon the claimant’s “compelling interest! ] to be heard at the initiation of forfeiture proceedings against their property rights to assure that there [wa]s probable cause to believe that a person committed a crime using that property to justify a property restraint.” 588 So.2d at 964 (emphasis added).

Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991); see also Sheffey v. Futch, 250 So.2d 907, 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) (“[D]ue process has been defined in non-criminal situations as contemplating reasonable notice and an opportunity to appear and be heard”).

Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991).

It contemplates that the defendant shall be given fair notice[ ] and afforded a real opportunity to be heard and defend [ ] in an orderly procedure, before judgment is rendered against him.” Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991) (quoting State ex rel.

Id. (quoting Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So.2d 957, 961 (Fla.1991)).

In that case, the plaintiffs argued “that governmental entities must show guilty intent on the part of the owner.” City of Miami, 976 So. 2d at 27 (relying on Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So. 2d 957, 968 (Fla. 1991)).

“Procedural due process requires both reasonable notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” N.C. v. Anderson, 882 So.2d 990, 993 (Fla.2004) (citing Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991)).

“Procedural due process serves as a vehicle to ensure fair treatment through the proper administration of justice where substantive rights are at issue.” Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991).

Due process requires that a party ‘“be given ... a real opportunity to be heard and defend in an orderly procedure, before judgment is rendered against him.’ ” Burch v. City of Lakeland, 891 So.2d 654, 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991)).

As explained by this Court in Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957, 961 (Fla.1991): Owners [were permitted under the pre-1995 Act to] raise a defense only after the property ha[d] been seized, and they [were required to] bear the burden in forfeiture proceedings of proving that they neither knew, nor should have known after a reasonable inquiry, that the property was being used or was likely to be used to commit an enumerated crime.

Ill judicial system for whatever preliminary inquiry is to be made as to the basis for a jeopardy assessment and levy.” (Id. at p. 630, fn. 12.) Ross v. Duggan (6th Cir. 2004) 402 F.3d 575 , County of Nassau v. Canavan (2003) 1 N.Y.3d 134 [ 770 N.Y.S.2d 277 , 802 N.E.2d 616 ], Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property (Fla. 1991) 588 So.2d 957 *211 (applying Fla. law), State ex rel.

It contemplates that the defendant shall be given fair notice and afforded a real opportunity to be heard and defend in an orderly procedure, before judgment is rendered against him. " (emphasis supplied) (empty brackets omitted) (quoting Dep't of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991))).

In Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957, 966 (Fla.1991), the Florida Supreme Court stated: "In all forfeiture cases, due process under article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution requires that notice shall be served on all persons whom the agency knows, or with reasonable investigation should know, have a legal interest in the subject property." Due process provides: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process o…

As our supreme court has warned, individuals are to be treated in a fundamentally fair manner and their individual rights should be free from unwarranted encroachment by the government, J.B. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 768 So.2d 1060, 1063 (Fla.2000) (citing Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957 960 (Fla.1991)).

O'Malley v. 6323 North LaCrosse Ave., 158 Ill.2d 453 , 199 Ill.Dec. 690 , 634 N.E.2d 743, 746 (1994); Pennsylvania v. One Z-28 Camaro Coupe, 530 Pa. 523 , 610 A.2d 36, 38 (1992); Medlock v. 1985 Ford F-150 Pick Up, 308 S.C. 68 , 417 S.E.2d 85, 87 (1992); Dept. of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So.2d 957, 967 (Fla.1991); Massachusetts v. One 1972 Chevrolet Van, 385 Mass. 198 , 431 N.E.2d 209, 211 (1982); People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe, 37 Cal.2d 283 , 231 P.2d 832, 84…

O'Malley v. 6323 North LaCrosse Ave., 158 Ill.2d 453 , 199 Ill.Dec. 690 , 634 N.E.2d 743 (1994) (in civil forfeiture proceeding involving real property used to facilitate drug trafficking, Illinois Constitution’s jury trial provision mandates that claimant has right to jury trial; statute which denied such right was unconstitutional); Com. v. One 1984 Z-28 Camaro Coupe, 530 Pa. 523 , 610 A.2d 36 (1992) (owner of property subject to forfeiture under Controlled Substances Forf…

I, § 9, Fla. Const." Dep't of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991).

Therefore, this court has long followed a policy that it must strictly construe forfeiture statutes.” Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957, 961 (Fla.1991) (citing General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. State, 152 Fla. 297 , 11 So.2d 482, 484 (1943); City of Miami v. Miller, 148 Fla. 349 , 4 So.2d 369, 370 (1941)) (emphasis added); see also Byrom v. Gallagher, 609 So.2d 24, 26 (Fla.1992) (same).

See Byrom v. Gallagher, 609 So.2d 24 (Fla.1992); Butterworth v. Caggiano, 605 So.2d 56 (Fla. 1992); Dep't of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957, 961 (Fla.1991) ("In construing the [Florida Contraband Forfeiture] Act, we note that forfeitures are considered harsh exactions, and as a general rule they are not favored either in law or equity."); Fla. State Board of Architecture v. Seymour, 62 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1952); Boyle v. State, 47 So.2d 693 (Fla. 1950); City of Mi…

Substantive due process protects “the full panoply of individual rights from unwarranted encroachment by the government.” Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991).

Substantive due process protects "the full panoply of individual rights from unwarranted encroachment by the government." Dep't of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957, 960 (Fla.1991).

Byrom v. Gallagher, 609 So.2d 24, 26 (Fla. 1992); Dep't of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So.2d 957, 961 (Fla.1991).

See, e.g., State v. Townsend, 635 So.2d 949, 957 (Fla.1994) (to clarify possible inconsistencies between statute and United States Supreme Court precedent, initial determination of reliability of child abuse hearsay statement under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes, must be made without regard to corroborating circumstances); Dep't of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957, 968 (Fla.1991) (civil forfeiture statute containing "multitude of procedural deficiencies"…

“The only action expressly authorized by the [Florida Contraband Forfeiture] Act to initiate forfeiture is the actual seizure of the subject property.” Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Real Prop., 588 So.2d 957, 962 (Fla.1991).