06-0105 MIAMI-DADE POLICE V. IN RE FORFEITURE

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2006 » 06-0105 MIAMI-DADE POLICE V. IN RE FORFEITURE

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 06-0105 MIAMI-DADE POLICE V. IN RE FORFEITURE

Case Date: 12/20/2006

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2006

MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Appellant, vs.

** ** ** CASE NO. 3D06-105

IN RE FORFEITURE $28,176.00 U.S. ** CURRENCY, ** Appellee.

LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 05-20175

Opinion filed December 20, 2006. An Appeal from the Circuit Roberto M. Pineiro, Judge. Court for Miami-Dade County,

William J. Monahan, and Robert Knabe, for appellant. Gregg S. Lerman, for appellee.

Before COPE, C.J., and GERSTEN, and SHEPHERD, JJ. PER CURIAM. The Miami-Dade Police Department ("Department"), appeals an adverse final judgment which found there was no probable cause for the seizure of $28,176.00. We affirm.

Around 8:00PM, two undercover police officers saw a parked Honda in the corner of a shopping plaza parking lot. The lot was emptying out but several businesses were still open. The police

officers believed that the car was either abandoned or stolen. However, they did not have any information that anyone had

reported the car stolen. Although the officers did not see anyone in the car or any criminal activity, they approached the car to check the tag and VIN number. The driver started the engine and drove toward the

parking lot exit. The officers ran the tag and learned that the car was not stolen. The officers followed the driver and activated their police lights. The driver was fully cooperative and pulled over. The He

officers asked the driver why he was in the parking lot. said he was waiting for an individual named Tony.

Upon further questioning, the driver then admitted that he had driven down from West Palm Beach to purchase marijuana from an unknown individual, and that there was money in the backseat. The driver waived his Miranda rights and agreed to a vehicle search. The police seized $28,176.00 in U.S. currency as

contraband. The trial court conducted a civil forfeiture probable cause hearing at the driver's request. The trial court concluded that the police officers conducted an illegal stop in violation of

2

the Fourth Amendment, and excluded the seized currency. This appeal follows. On appeal, the Department contends that the trial court denied the Department the opportunity to present evidence on the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. The Department also argues

that the trial court erred in finding that the police officers did not have reasonable suspicion for the stop. We disagree.

Florida law is clear that the exclusionary rule applies to forfeiture proceedings, and that evidence the police obtain in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded at probable cause hearings. See Alvarez v. City of Hialeah, 900 So. 2d 761, Therefore, it is necessary for courts issues prior to addressing the

765 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). to address Fourth

Amendment

probable cause issue of whether there is a nexus between the seized property and illegal activities. In re Forfeiture of 1999 Dodge Intrepid v. Judd, 934 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Here, at the probable cause hearing, the court excluded the evidence found as a result of the illegal stop. The Department

did not ask to present evidence on this issue, did not object during the hearing, and did not seek a continuance to present additional evidence. The Department can not now claim error

because it did not preserve this issue for appellate review. See F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2003).

3

Next, we turn to the legality of the stop.

Based on our de

novo review of the evidence, we agree with the trial court that the police conducted an illegal investigatory stop and that any evidence the police obtained as a result of the stop must be excluded. A police officer may conduct an investigatory stop and

detain a citizen temporarily on less than probable cause if the officer has reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. State v. Taylor, 826

So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Donaldson v. State, 803 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The officer, however, must be able to

point to specific facts, which taken together with inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant this type of intrusion.

Download 06-0105 MIAMI-DADE POLICE V. IN RE FORFEITURE.pdf