The 2022 Florida Statutes (including 2022 Special Session A and 2023 Special Session B)
|
||||||
|
Marolf's primary argument is that the evidence presented at the hearing failed to establish probable cause because the currency does not meet the definition of “contraband article” or “instrumentality” under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, sections 932.701 –932.706, Florida Statutes (2014).
In a forfeiture proceeding under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, §§ 932.701 –932.706, Florida Statutes (2013) (the “Act”), Orlando Sanchez appeals from a non-final order entered after an adversarial preliminary hearing finding probable cause to support the City of West Palm Beach's continued seizure of $11,165.00 in U.S. currency. Because the circuit court prevented Sanchez from calling witnesses and introducing evidence at the hearing, we reverse and remand for a new adversarial preliminary hearing.
Despite the sheriff's argument to the contrary, property connected to a violation of gambling laws, such as section 849.0931, is not per se "used, in violation of" the FCFA (§§ 932.701- 932.706, Fla. Stat.). Section 932.703(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides for forfeiture only of property "used in violation of" the FCFA or "by means of which any violation of" the FCFA takes place.
. . . contraband article” or “instrumentality” under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, sections 932.701-932.706 . . .
. . . In a forfeiture proceeding under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, §§ 932.701-932.706, Florida Statutes . . .
. . . action for forfeiture of the seized cash pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, §§ 932.701-932.706 . . .
. . . used or intended to be used in violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, sections 932.701-932.706 . . . gambling laws, such as section 849.0931, is not per se “used, in violation of’ the FCFA (§§ 932.701-932.706 . . .
. . . Sections 932.701 through 932.706, Florida Statutes (2008), constitute the Act. . . .