Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Brevard County Sheriff's Office v. Brown
Citations: 208 So. 3d 1281; 2017 WL 456933; 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 1257Docket: 5D15-3390
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; January 29, 2017; Florida; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
During a search warrant execution, the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office found a glass pipe with methamphetamine residue in Kevin Brown’s Corvette and sought forfeiture of the vehicle under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act (FCFA). The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the presence of the pipe did not prove the Corvette was used in committing a felony. The Sheriff’s Office appealed, arguing that possession of the pipe constituted a felony, making the Corvette subject to forfeiture. The court reversed the lower court's decision, emphasizing a two-step forfeiture process: the first stage involves establishing probable cause for property seizure, which occurred in this case. Florida law prohibits using vehicles for concealing contraband, classified as any controlled substance or related paraphernalia. Since methamphetamine is a controlled substance and possession is a felony, the vehicle is subject to forfeiture under the FCFA, as outlined in section 932.703(4). Vessels, vehicles, aircraft, or other properties where contraband is found are presumed to be used for facilitating the illegal activities associated with that contraband, as per s. 90.302(2) and s. 932.701(2)(3), 932.703(4) of the Florida Statutes. In this case, Brown’s Corvette is subject to forfeiture because methamphetamine was discovered in a pipe within the vehicle, regardless of whether the Corvette was actively used to transport the drug. Possession of illegal substances, even for personal use, leads to both criminal penalties and potential forfeiture of the vehicle involved. The location of the drugs—whether on the seat, in the console, or in a person's pocket—does not alter the forfeiture's applicability. Case law supports that vehicles are forfeitable even with small quantities of contraband, and mere possession is sufficient for forfeiture, as illustrated in various cited cases. Moreover, a trial court erroneously dismissed a forfeiture complaint where drug paraphernalia tested positive for illegal substances, failing to recognize that possession does not require a measurable amount of the controlled substance. Precedents indicate that even trace amounts found on items used for consumption can substantiate a possession conviction. Positive results from a field test are sufficient evidence of contraband for forfeiture purposes. The standard for probable cause during seizure requires a demonstration of a reasonable belief that the property was used in violation of the Forfeiture Act. In this case, Brevard provided enough evidence to establish probable cause that methamphetamine was present in the Corvette, thus invoking the presumption outlined in section 932.703(4), which states that a vehicle containing contraband is presumed to be used for illegal purposes. Consequently, the trial court's dismissal of the forfeiture complaint is reversed, and the case is remanded for reinstatement of the complaint, a finding of probable cause, and continuation of the forfeiture proceedings. Associate Judge Craggs concurs, while Judge Orfinger concurs specially, refraining from commenting on Brevard's potential burden of proof at trial and noting that possession of even minor amounts of controlled substances can result in felony charges.