Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 932.704 (2025)

Forfeiture proceedings.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

932.704 Forfeiture proceedings.—

(1) It is the policy of this state that law enforcement agencies shall utilize the provisions of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act to deter and prevent the continued use of contraband articles for criminal purposes while protecting the proprietary interests of innocent owners and lienholders and to authorize such law enforcement agencies to use the proceeds collected under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act as supplemental funding for authorized purposes. The potential for obtaining revenues from forfeitures must not override fundamental considerations such as public safety, the safety of law enforcement officers, or the investigation and prosecution of criminal activity. It is also the policy of this state that law enforcement agencies ensure that, in all seizures made under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, their officers adhere to federal and state constitutional limitations regarding an individual’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, including, but not limited to, the illegal use of stops based on a pretext, coercive-consent searches, or a search based solely upon an individual’s race or ethnicity.

(2) In each judicial circuit, all civil forfeiture cases shall be heard before a circuit court judge of the civil division, if a civil division has been established. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern forfeiture proceedings under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act unless otherwise specified under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.

(3) Any trial on the ultimate issue of forfeiture shall be decided by a jury, unless such right is waived by the claimant through a written waiver or on the record before the court conducting the forfeiture proceeding.

(4) The seizing agency shall promptly proceed against the contraband article by filing a complaint in the circuit court within the jurisdiction where the seizure or the offense occurred, paying a filing fee of at least $1,000 and depositing a bond of $1,500 to the clerk of the court. Unless otherwise expressly agreed to in writing by the parties, the bond shall be payable to the claimant if the claimant prevails in the forfeiture proceeding and in any appeal.

(5)(a) The complaint shall be styled, “In RE: FORFEITURE OF ” (followed by the name or description of the property). The complaint shall contain a brief jurisdictional statement, a description of the subject matter of the proceeding, and a statement of the facts sufficient to state a cause of action that would support a final judgment of forfeiture. The complaint must be accompanied by a verified supporting affidavit.

(b) If no person entitled to notice requests an adversarial preliminary hearing, as provided in s. 932.703(3)(a), the court, upon receipt of the complaint, shall review the complaint and the verified supporting affidavit to determine whether there was probable cause for the seizure. Upon a finding of probable cause, the court shall enter an order showing the probable cause finding.

(c) The court shall require any claimant who desires to contest the forfeiture to file and serve upon the attorney representing the seizing agency any responsive pleadings and affirmative defenses within 20 days after receipt of the complaint and probable cause finding.

(6)(a) If the property is required by law to be titled or registered, or if the owner of the property is known in fact to the seizing agency, or if the seized property is subject to a perfected security interest in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code, chapter 679, the attorney for the seizing agency shall serve the forfeiture complaint as an original service of process under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and other applicable law to each person having an ownership or security interest in the property. The seizing agency shall also publish, in accordance with chapter 50, notice of the forfeiture complaint for 2 consecutive weeks on a publicly accessible website or, if published in print, once each week for 2 consecutive weeks in a newspaper qualified to publish legal notices under chapter 50 in the county where the seizure occurred.

(b) The complaint must, in addition to stating that which is required by s. 932.703(3)(a) and (b), as appropriate, describe the property; state the county, place, and date of seizure; state the name of the law enforcement agency holding the seized property; and state the name of the court in which the complaint will be filed.

(c) The seizing agency shall be obligated to make a diligent search and inquiry as to the owner of the subject property, and if, after such diligent search and inquiry, the seizing agency is unable to ascertain any person entitled to notice, the actual notice requirements by mail shall not be applicable.

(7) When the claimant and the seizing law enforcement agency agree to settle the forfeiture action prior to the conclusion of the forfeiture proceeding, the settlement agreement shall be reviewed, unless such review is waived by the claimant in writing, by the court or a mediator or arbitrator agreed upon by the claimant and the seizing law enforcement agency. If the claimant is unrepresented, the settlement agreement must include a provision that the claimant has freely and voluntarily agreed to enter into the settlement without benefit of counsel.

(8) Upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the contraband article was being used in violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, the court shall order the seized property forfeited to the seizing law enforcement agency. The final order of forfeiture by the court shall perfect in the law enforcement agency right, title, and interest in and to such property, subject only to the rights and interests of bona fide lienholders, and shall relate back to the date of seizure.

(9)(a) When the claimant prevails at the conclusion of the forfeiture proceeding, if the seizing agency decides not to appeal, the seized property shall be released immediately to the person entitled to possession of the property as determined by the court. Under such circumstances, the seizing agency shall not assess any towing charges, storage fees, administrative costs, or maintenance costs against the claimant with respect to the seized property or the forfeiture proceeding.

(b) When the claimant prevails at the conclusion of the forfeiture proceeding, any decision to appeal must be made by the chief administrative official of the seizing agency, or his or her designee. The trial court shall require the seizing agency to pay to the claimant the reasonable loss of value of the seized property when the claimant prevails at trial or on appeal and the seizing agency retained the seized property during the trial or appellate process. The trial court shall also require the seizing agency to pay to the claimant any loss of income directly attributed to the continued seizure of income-producing property during the trial or appellate process. If the claimant prevails on appeal, the seizing agency shall immediately release the seized property to the person entitled to possession of the property as determined by the court, pay any cost as assessed by the court, and may not assess any towing charges, storage fees, administrative costs, or maintenance costs against the claimant with respect to the seized property or the forfeiture proceeding.

(10) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, up to a limit of $2,000, to the claimant at the close of the adversarial preliminary hearing if the court makes a finding of no probable cause. When the claimant prevails, at the close of forfeiture proceedings and any appeal, the court shall award reasonable trial attorney’s fees and costs to the claimant if the court finds that the seizing agency has not proceeded at any stage of the proceedings in good faith or that the seizing agency’s action which precipitated the forfeiture proceedings was a gross abuse of the agency’s discretion. The court may order the seizing agency to pay the awarded attorney’s fees and costs from the appropriate contraband forfeiture trust fund. Nothing in this subsection precludes any party from electing to seek attorney’s fees and costs under chapter 57 or other applicable law.

(11)(a) The Department of Law Enforcement, in consultation with the Florida Sheriffs Association and the Florida Police Chiefs Association, shall develop guidelines and training procedures to be used by state and local law enforcement agencies and state attorneys in implementing the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. At least annually, each state or local law enforcement agency that seizes property for the purpose of forfeiture shall review such seizures, any settlements, and any forfeiture proceedings initiated by the law enforcement agency to determine whether they comply with the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act and the guidelines adopted under this subsection. If the review suggests deficiencies, the state or local law enforcement agency shall promptly take action to comply with the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.

(b) The determination as to whether an agency will file a civil forfeiture action is the sole responsibility of the head of the agency or his or her designee.

(c) The determination as to whether to seize currency must be made by supervisory personnel. The agency’s legal counsel must be notified as soon as possible after a determination is made.

(d) The employment, salary, promotion, or other compensation of any law enforcement officer may not be dependent on the ability of the officer to meet a quota for seizures.

(e) A seizing agency shall adopt and implement written policies, procedures, and training to ensure compliance with all applicable legal requirements regarding seizing, maintaining, and the forfeiture of property under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.

(f) When property is seized for forfeiture, the probable cause supporting the seizure must be promptly reviewed by supervisory personnel. The seizing agency’s legal counsel must be notified as soon as possible of all seizures and shall conduct a review to determine whether there is legal sufficiency to proceed with a forfeiture action.

(g) Each seizing agency shall adopt and implement written policies and procedures promoting the prompt release of seized property as may be required by the act or by agency determination when there is no legitimate basis for holding seized property. To help ensure that property is not wrongfully held after seizure, each law enforcement agency must adopt written policies and procedures ensuring that all asserted claims of interest in seized property are promptly reviewed for potential validity.

(h) The settlement of any forfeiture action must be consistent with the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act and the policy of the seizing agency.

(i) Law enforcement agency personnel involved in the seizure of property for forfeiture shall receive basic training and continuing education as required by the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. Each agency shall maintain records demonstrating each law enforcement officer’s compliance with this requirement. Among other things, the training must address the legal aspects of forfeiture, including, but not limited to, search and seizure and other constitutional considerations.

History.—s. 4, ch. 74-385; s. 4, ch. 80-68; s. 1, ch. 82-239; s. 2, ch. 85-304; s. 2, ch. 85-316; s. 1, ch. 87-77; s. 4, ch. 89-148; s. 2, ch. 89-307; s. 6, ch. 90-17; s. 4, ch. 92-54; s. 4, ch. 95-265; s. 27, ch. 2010-117; s. 3, ch. 2016-179; s. 30, ch. 2021-17; s. 22, ch. 2022-103.

Note.—Former s. 943.44.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 121 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: City of Hollywood v. Mulligan, 934 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Hollywood v. Mulligan, 934 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 2006). · cites it 11× “The Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act In 1974, one year after the adoption of the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act, the Legislature adopted the Florida Uniform *1244 Contraband Transportation Act.”

Dep't of Law Enf. v. Real Prop., 588 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1991). · cites it 8× “" § 932.704(1), Fla. Stat. (1989). The Act does not address any requirements for filing the petition; which procedural rules should apply to control the litigation; what standard and burden of proof is "due" for issuance of the rule; whether a trial with or without a jury is…”

DeGregorio v. Balkwill, 853 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2003). · cites it 9× “The facts of Lamar I were that the Sheriff of Orange County had seized a vehicle on July 22, 1983. On July 29, seven days after the seizure, the owner of the vehicle filed a replevin action against the sheriff, seeking return of the vehicle.”

Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559 (1999). · cites it 4× “[4] Moreover, the state court's conclusion that the warrant process is a sensible protection from abuse of government power is bolstered by the inherent risks of hindsight at postseizure hearings and law enforcement agencies' pecuniary interest in the seizure of such property.”

Gomez v. Vill. of Pinecrest, 41 So. 3d 180 (Fla. 2010). · cites it 5× “When the claimant prevails, at the close of forfeiture proceedings and any appeal, the court shall award reasonable trial attorney’s fees and costs to the claimant if the court finds that the seizing agency has not proceeded at any stage of the proceedings in good faith or that…”

Bruce v. Beary, 498 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “See Fla. Stat. § 932.704 (9)(a). Additionally, we observe that the statute also provides that "[i]f the claimant prevails on appeal, the seizing agent shall immediately release the seized property to the person entitled to possession of the property as determined by the court,…”

Pondella Hall for Hire, Inc. v. Lámar, 866 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). · cites it 7× “*722 Forfeiture Claim In this count, Pondella alleged that "Section 932.704, Fla. Stat. requires that the seizing agency, when it does not prevail, must pay the loss of value and use of the property seized, as well as the business loss, fees and costs.”

Rosado v. Bieluch, 827 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). · cites it 12× “§ 932.704(10), Fla. Stat. (2001)(emphasis added).”

Bd. of Trs., Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund, etc. v. Curtis W. Lee, 189 So. 3d 120 (Fla. 2016). · cites it 3× “(providing for attorney’s fees within the Public Records Act without using “good faith” language), with § 932.704(10), Fla. Stat. (2014) (providing for attorney’s fees within the civil forfeiture statute and using “good faith” language).”

Velez v. Miami-dade Cnty. Police Dept., 934 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 2006). · cites it 3× “The person contesting the forfeiture in the second stage is identified in section 932.704 as a "claimant." The class of persons who are claimants is narrower than those entitled to notice of the adversarial preliminary hearing.”

In re the Forfeiture of United States Currency in the Amount of Five Thousand Three Hundred Dollars, 429 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). · cites it 6× “This is a forfeiture proceeding under the provisions of Section 932.704, Florida Statutes (1981).”

Gomez v. Vill. of Pinecrest, 17 So. 3d 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). · cites it 8× “Thereafter, the Village of Pinecrest ("Pinecrest"), as the seizing agency, notified Gomez that, pursuant to section 932.704, Florida Statutes (2007), the real property may be seized, and that she had the right to demand an adversarial preliminary hearing under section 932.”

Show all 121 citing cases →

— 932.704(1) — 34 cases

Dep't of Law Enf. v. Real Prop., 588 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1991). “" § 932.704(1), Fla. Stat. (1989). The Act does not address any requirements for filing the petition; which procedural rules should apply to control the litigation; what standard and burden of proof is "due" for issuance of the rule; whether a trial with or without a jury is…”

City of Hollywood v. Mulligan, 934 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 2006). “The Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act In 1974, one year after the adoption of the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act, the Legislature adopted the Florida Uniform *1244 Contraband Transportation Act.”

DeGregorio v. Balkwill, 853 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2003). “The facts of Lamar I were that the Sheriff of Orange County had seized a vehicle on July 22, 1983. On July 29, seven days after the seizure, the owner of the vehicle filed a replevin action against the sheriff, seeking return of the vehicle.”

Lámar v. Universal Supply Co., Inc., 479 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1985).

Mulligan v. City of Hollywood, 871 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

— 932.704(1)(1997) — 1 case

Golon v. Jenne, 739 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

— 932.704(10) — 13 cases

Bd. of Trs., Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund, etc. v. Curtis W. Lee, 189 So. 3d 120 (Fla. 2016). “(providing for attorney’s fees within the Public Records Act without using “good faith” language), with § 932.704(10), Fla. Stat. (2014) (providing for attorney’s fees within the civil forfeiture statute and using “good faith” language).”

Rosado v. Bieluch, 827 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). “§ 932.704(10), Fla. Stat. (2001)(emphasis added).”

Gomez v. Vill. of Pinecrest, 41 So. 3d 180 (Fla. 2010). “When the claimant prevails, at the close of forfeiture proceedings and any appeal, the court shall award reasonable trial attorney’s fees and costs to the claimant if the court finds that the seizing agency has not proceeded at any stage of the proceedings in good faith or that…”

Gay v. Beary, 758 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

Burns v. State, Dep't of Legal Affairs, 147 So. 3d 95 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).

— 932.704(2) — 16 cases

Gervais v. City of Melbourne, 890 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

In the Matter of U.S. Currency Totaling ,245.00: Elias Orosco v. The State of Wyoming, 2022 WY 15 (Wyo. 2022).

Jones v. Greene, 946 S.W.2d 817 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

Gonzalez v. City of Homestead, 825 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

— 932.704(3) — 10 cases

Chuck v. City of Homestead Police Dept., 888 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).

Kern v. State, 706 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

Gonzalez v. City of Homestead, 825 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

State v. Sobieck, 701 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

— 932.704(3)(a) — 2 cases

City of Orlando v. Sun Bank, N.A., 428 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).

In re the Forfeiture of 1982 Park Avenue Buick, 505 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).

— 932.704(4) — 14 cases

Town of Oakland v. Mercer, 851 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

Crepage v. City of Lauderhill, 774 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

In Re Forfeiture of Seven Thou. & 00/100, 942 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Kern v. State, 706 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

— 932.704(4)(b) — 1 case

Gonzalez v. City of Tampa, 106 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

— 932.704(5) — 1 case

State v. Sobieck, 701 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

— 932.704(5)(a) — 2 cases

David Gee, Sheriff of Hillsborough Cnty. v. Grantland, 203 So. 3d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

Gonzalez v. City of Hollywood, 805 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

— 932.704(5)(b) — 5 cases

City of Fort Lauderdale v. Baruch, 718 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

David Gee, Sheriff of Hillsborough Cnty. v. Grantland, 203 So. 3d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

Michael Hudson v. City of Sunrise, 237 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

Dep't of High. Saf. & Motor Vehs. v. Churchill, 932 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Dep't of High. Saf. & Motor Vehs. v. Frey, 965 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

— 932.704(5)(c) — 2 cases

Cloud v. State, 810 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

Gonzalez v. City of Hollywood, 805 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

— 932.704(6) — 1 case

Hicks v. City of Hialeah, 647 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

— 932.704(6)(a) — 4 cases

Munoz v. City of Coral Gables, 695 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

Hicks v. City of Hialeah, 647 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

Ocean Bank v. Save Imp. & Exp., Inc., 797 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

Gonzalez v. City of Hollywood, 805 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

— 932.704(6)(b) — 1 case

Hicks v. City of Hialeah, 647 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

— 932.704(7) — 1 case

Lewis v. Rutherford, 117 So. 3d 30 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

— 932.704(8) — 11 cases

Velez v. Miami-dade Cnty. Police Dept., 934 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 2006). “The person contesting the forfeiture in the second stage is identified in section 932.704 as a "claimant." The class of persons who are claimants is narrower than those entitled to notice of the adversarial preliminary hearing.”

Butler v. City of Melbourne Police Dept., 812 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

Michael Hudson v. City of Sunrise, 237 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

David Gee, Sheriff of Hillsborough Cnty. v. Grantland, 203 So. 3d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

— 932.704(9) — 5 cases

Gervais v. City of Melbourne, 890 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

Rosado v. Bieluch, 827 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). “§ 932.704(10), Fla. Stat. (2001)(emphasis added).”

Gonzalez v. City of Tampa, 106 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Cox v. Dep't of High. Saf., 881 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

Underwood v. State Ex Rel. Cnty. of Pinellas Ex Rel. Pinellas Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 210 So. 3d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

— 932.704(9)(b) — 9 cases

Pondella Hall for Hire, Inc. v. Lámar, 866 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). “*722 Forfeiture Claim In this count, Pondella alleged that "Section 932.704, Fla. Stat. requires that the seizing agency, when it does not prevail, must pay the loss of value and use of the property seized, as well as the business loss, fees and costs.”

Gay v. Beary, 758 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

Gomez v. Vill. of Pinecrest, 17 So. 3d 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). “Thereafter, the Village of Pinecrest ("Pinecrest"), as the seizing agency, notified Gomez that, pursuant to section 932.704, Florida Statutes (2007), the real property may be seized, and that she had the right to demand an adversarial preliminary hearing under section 932.”

Gonzalez v. City of Tampa, 106 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

— 932.704(c) — 1 case

Tejada v. In Re Forfeiture of the Following Described Prop. 6,626.11 in Us Currency, 820 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.