Miami-Dade Police Department v. Forfeiture of $15,875.51

Citations: 54 So. 3d 595; 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1898; 2011 WL 638219Docket: No. 3D10-1942

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; February 15, 2011; Florida; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Miami-Dade Police Department (MDPD) appeals a trial court ruling that found no probable cause for a civil forfeiture of $15,875.51 seized from Cedric Davenport during a traffic stop for illegally tinted windows. During the stop, detectives detected a strong odor of marijuana and found a baggie of marijuana and a significant amount of cash, which was bundled in a manner indicative of drug trafficking. Davenport was arrested for possession of marijuana, and a subsequent search revealed additional cash in his pockets. Although Davenport claimed the money was from his lawn service business intended for purchasing a vehicle, he could not provide details or documentation to support his claim. 

MDPD filed for forfeiture under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. At an adversarial preliminary hearing, the trial court ruled that no probable cause existed to support the forfeiture, ordering the return of the seized cash and awarding Davenport $500 in attorney’s fees. The MDPD's appeal contends that the court did not adequately apply the legal standard for probable cause as defined in Florida Statutes, which requires a determination of whether the property was used or intended for use in violation of the Act. The law stipulates that if probable cause is established, the court should authorize the seizure. The ruling highlighted that the initial inquiry focuses on whether the information used by MDPD was reliable enough to support a reasonable belief that a violation occurred.

To establish probable cause under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, a seized item must be classified as a 'contraband article,' which includes currency used or intended for use in violations of Chapter 893 related to illegal narcotics. The state must demonstrate a sufficient connection between the seized currency and narcotics activity, regardless of whether the currency can be linked to a specific drug transaction. Courts have ruled that the connection need not be direct; rather, it must be reasonably linked to illegal narcotics activity.

The state can meet its burden of proof through an aggregation of facts, even if no single fact is sufficient on its own. Probable cause may be established through circumstantial evidence, with courts considering the totality of the circumstances rather than isolated pieces of evidence. This approach was affirmed in the case of *Holguin*, where various indicators, including the odor of marijuana and the behavior of the defendant, contributed to a finding of probable cause despite the absence of direct evidence linking the seized currency to narcotics. 

In *Holguin*, a significant amount of cash was discovered during a traffic stop, and despite the defendant's claims about the source of the funds being unverified, the presence of a trained narcotics canine that alerted to the currency supported the state's argument for forfeiture. The appellate court upheld that the totality of the circumstances provided sufficient probable cause for forfeiture.

Probable cause for a forfeiture proceeding is established based on several key circumstances: 1) Davenport was stopped for driving a rented vehicle with illegal window tint; 2) police detected the odor of raw marijuana from the vehicle; 3) a search revealed a bag containing marijuana in the back seat; 4) $10,000 in cash was found in the center console; 5) additional cash amounts of $5,000 and $875.51 were discovered on Davenport during his arrest; 6) the cash was bundled in a manner typical of drug dealers; 7) a narcotics detection dog alerted to the cash, suggesting it had been near illegal drugs; 8) Davenport provided inconsistent explanations regarding the cash's origin and intended use. Although individually these factors may not meet the probable cause threshold, their collective weight satisfies the legal requirement for the seizure of the currency and the continuation of the forfeiture action. The decision is reversed and remanded.