CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 9, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 6, 1992 WL 153
BARKETT, Justice. We have for review In re Forfeiture of 1969 Piper Navajo,
570 So.2d 1357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), in which the district court declared section
330.40 of the Florida Stat *234 utes (1987) unconstitutional....
...The sheriff alleged that the aircraft was equipped with extra fuel tanks which did not conform to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, 2 and which were not approved by the FAA, and therefore the aircraft was subject to forfeiture pursuant to section
330.40 of the Florida Statutes (1987). A petition for forfeiture of the aircraft was timely filed pursuant to sections
330.40 and
932.703(1) of the Florida Statutes (1987). Appellee, Anacaola Trading (Anacaola), the owner of the aircraft, sought dismissal of the petition on the basis that, among other reasons, section
330.40 violated due process of law. The trial court dismissed the petition for forfeiture and found the forfeiture provision contained in section
330.40 to be unconstitutional....
...ane to be equipped with extra fuel tanks for purposes other than smuggling. Therefore, the statute brings within its ambit otherwise innocent activities.” In re Forfeiture of 1969 Piper Navajo,
570 So.2d at 1359 . Accordingly, the court found that section
330.40, “as it relates to the ‘Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act,’ ” was not rationally related to any legislative objective and thus violated substantive due process of law. The district court affirmed and adopted the trial judge’s order in substantial part. Section
330.40, Florida Statutes (1989), provides in full: In the interests of the public welfare, it is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or association to install, maintain, or possess any aircraft which has been equipped with, or had ins...
...775.084. Any aircraft in violation of this section shall be considered contraband, and said aircraft may be seized as contraband by a law enforcement agency and shall be subject to forfeiture pursuant to ss.
932.701-932.704. (Emphasis added.) Thus, under section
330.40, originally enacted in 1983, the possession of Anacaola’s aircraft, if it had unapproved fuel tanks, 3 was a felony of the third degree. §
330.40, Fla.Stat. (1983). In 1987, the legislature amended section
330.40 to expressly authorize forfeiture of such nonconforming aircraft 4 as contraband per se under the Flor *235 ida Contraband Forfeiture Act....
...In considering whether a statute violates substantive due process, the basic test is whether the state can justify the infringement of its legislative activity upon personal rights and liberties. The general rule is that when the legislature enacts penal statutes, such as section 330.40, under the authority of the state’s police power, the legislature’s power is confined to those acts which reasonably may be construed as expedient for protection of the public health, safety, and welfare....
...tween drug smuggling and expanded fuel tanks. If the statute simply prohibited the possession of extra fuel capacity, Anacaola’s position would have merit. 6 However, the legislature has not prohibited merely the possession of extra fuel capacity. Section 330.40 makes it “unlawful for any person ... to install, maintain, or possess any aircraft which has been equipped with ... fuel tanks ... which ... do not conform to federal aviation regulations.” § 330.40, Fla.Stat....
...ly because they possess additional fuel capacity. The central concern of substantive due process is to limit the means employed by the state to the least restrictive way of achieving its permissible ends. We note that in authorizing forfeiture under section 330.40, the legislature has even exceeded the awesome authority exercised in the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. On its face, section 330.40 automatically converts every aircraft with nonconforming fuel tanks, whether airworthy or not, and whether involved in criminal activity or not, into contraband subject to forfeiture under the forfeiture act....
...to assure compliance with FAA regulations. And in the event that an aircraft is being used as a criminal instrumentality, the forfeiture act already provides for forfeiture of such aircraft. Accordingly, we hold the forfeiture provision contained in section 330.40, Florida Statutes (1987), unconstitutional under due process of law as guaranteed by article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution....
....The 1987 amendment was passed as part of the Crime Prevention and Control Act which governs the use, regulation, distribution, and prohibition of controlled substances. Ch. 87-243, § 4, Laws of Fla. The amendment was prompted by case law which held that forfeiture was not an available penalty for violations of section 330.40....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9104, 1990 WL 191893
PER CURIAM. The Sheriff of Broward County appeals an order of the trial court declaring the forfeiture provision contained in section 330.40, Florida Statutes (1987) to be unconstitutional....
...We publish in substantial part the late trial judge’s order which reasoning we adopt. Respondents challenged the forfeiture by means of the above mentioned Motion to Dismiss. In that Motion to Dismiss, .the parties challenged the constitutionality of FS 330.40....
...Any aircraft in violation of this section shall be considered contraband, and said aircraft may be seized as contraband by a law enforcement agency and shall be subject to forfeiture pursuant to §§ 9S2.701-932.70j. [Emphasis added]. ****** By its amendment to section 330.40, the legislature has made a declaration that all nonconforming aircraft are contraband per se and has subjected such aircraft to forfeiture proceedings under the “Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.” Civil forfeiture statutes are considered to be quasi-criminal and penal in nature....
...The statute fails to make any distinction between inadvertent neglect of FAA regulations and intentional subterfuge for the purposes of concealment. Forfeiture is too a harsh penalty for the former, and an already existing remedy for the latter. This Court finds FS 330.40, as it relates to the “Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act” to be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious and lacks a substantial relation to the object sought to be attained....
