Adversarial Preliminary Hearing – Forfeiture

If your property was seized for forfeiture in Florida by a law enforcement officer at the state or local level, you probably received a written “notice of seizure” form. The “notice of seizure” form explained that on a specific date and time, an officer seized property being used in violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, Section 932.701-704, Florida Statutes.

The seizure notice also states that the property owner is “entitled by law to request an adversarial preliminary hearing concerning the seizure of the property.” In an asset forfeiture case, the adversarial preliminary hearing  is often called the “APH.”

Act quickly! You must request the adversarial preliminary hearing (APH) within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of the Notice of Seizure.

Sometimes, people ask us: “Should I request an adversarial preliminary hearing?” The short answer is” Yes, there is never a good reason not to request an adversarial preliminary hearing if:

• you have standing to contest the seizure because:
  • you were in possession of the property at the time it was seized;
  • ou are the owner of the property seized for forfeiture; or
  • you have a propriety interest in the property seized for forfeiture as a victim, spouse, co-owner, lien holder, purchaser for value, or lien holder;
• you want the seizing agency to return the property to you; and
• You are not worried about incriminating yourself at the hearing, or you plan to let your attorney represent you at the hearing so you do not have to testify.

Filing the demand for the adversarial preliminary hearing is often the best and quickest way to get your property back, especially if the agency violated your Fourth Amendment rights when detaining, searching, or seizing the property.

An experienced attorney can help you demand the adversarial preliminary hearing (APH) and deliver it to the agency within fifteen (15) days. Once the agency receives the demand, it must schedule the hearing within ten (10) business days.

The goal in these cases is to get the court to find that the seizing agency failed to show probable cause to allow the forfeiture to proceed or that the seizure was otherwise illegal.

If so, the Court will order the seizing agency to return the property immediately. If the court orders the property to be returned, then the claimant’s counsel has thirty (30) days from entry of the Order to file a motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Florida law changed on July 1, 2016. Now, if the claimant prevails at APH when the court finds no probable cause for the seizure, the Court “shall” order the seizing agent to pay the Claimant’s attorney fees up to a limit of $2,000.

Attorneys for Adversarial Preliminary Hearings in Florida

If you retain an asset forfeiture attorney at Sammis Law Firm in Tampa, FL, we can take the following actions for a seizure under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.

First, we demand the “adversarial preliminary hearing” on your behalf (a sample form is attached below). We serve the demand on the seizing agency by certified U.S. Mail (return receipt requested).

When the agency’s attorney calls us, they often ask us to waive the 10-day requirement for setting the hearing, although we rarely agree to that request. Instead, we present evidence showing the property was illegally seized or isn’t subject to Florida’s Contraband Forfeiture Act.

We negotiate the return of the property with the agency’s attorney. That attorney might become especially motivated to resolve the case right before the adversarial preliminary hearing. If no resolution can be reached, we will attend the adversarial preliminary hearing (APH) on your behalf to argue for the immediate return of the property.

If the property is not returned during the APH, the agency will file a lawsuit to keep it, called a “complaint for forfeiture.” We can represent you during every stage of that lawsuit. We can help you file a verified claim, prepare an answer and counterclaim, conduct discovery, and go to trial.

Contact an attorney at Sammis Law Firm for an asset forfeiture case in Tampa, FL. Visit our main office in downtown Tampa. We have additional offices in Clearwater in Pinellas County and New Port Richey in Pasco County.

Our attorneys are experienced in representing clients in asset forfeiture and adversarial preliminary hearings throughout the greater Tampa Bay area, including Hernando County, Pasco County, Pinellas County, Manatee County, and Polk County, FL.

Call 813-250-0500.

What Happens at the Adversarial Preliminary Hearing?

Under Section 932.701(12)(f), an “adversarial preliminary hearing” is a hearing in which the seizing agency is required to establish probable cause that the property subject to forfeiture was used in violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. Before the APH, the seizing agency must deposit a bond as required by section 932.704(4), Florida Statutes. Under Florida Statute Section 932.703(2)(a), the seizing agency has ten (10) business days after the date of the seizure to file an application with the court for a determination of whether probable cause existed for the seizure.

A sworn affidavit must accompany the application for the probable cause determination and may be filed electronically by reliable electronic means. Under Section 932.703(3)(c), when an adversarial preliminary hearing is held, the court shall:

“review the verified affidavit and any other supporting documents and take any testimony to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the property was used, is being used, was attempted to be used, or was intended to be used in violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.

If probable cause is established, the court shall authorize the seizure or continued seizure of the subject contraband.”

Under Section 932.703(7)(a), property may not be forfeited under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act “unless the seizing agency establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the owner either knew or should have known after a reasonable inquiry, that the property was being employed or was likely to be employed in criminal activity.”

Once the seizing law enforcement agency receives the demand for the adversarial preliminary hearing (APD), the attorney for that agency must schedule the hearing to be heard within ten (10) days or as soon as practicable thereafter, as required by Section 932.703(3)(a).

Such requested adversarial preliminary hearing must be conducted with notice to the claimant(s) and an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. Sanchez v. City of W. Palm Beach, 149 So. 3d 92, 96-98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (finding due process requires giving a “person entitled to notice” an opportunity to litigate the issue of probable cause, which includes presenting relevant evidence).

At the hearing, the attorney for the agency may decide not to call any witnesses, although that is not usually the best strategy for the agency. Pursuant to City of Coral Springs v. Forfeiture of a 1997 Ford Ranger Pickup Truck …, 803 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), the hearsay evidence, including the sworn affidavit of the seizing agent, if properly admitted, might be sufficient to establish probable cause at an adversarial preliminary hearing, and that the seizing agency is not necessarily required to call witnesses to testify at this stage of forfeiture proceedings.

If so, those documents should be provided to the Claimant in advance of the hearing to avoid any due process violation or request to continue the hearing. Depending on issues presented by the documents, the Claimant’s attorney might decide not to subpoena any witnesses. On the other hand, the Claimant has the right to subpoena any witnesses that they want to question at the APH concerning:

1. a lawful basis for the initial stop and detention;
2. a lawful basis for any continued detention until the contraband was seized;
3. how the contraband was found;
4. whether a warrant was issued for the seizure;
5. whether any statements in the affidavit in support of the seizure warrant were untrue or intentionally misleading;
6. any statements made by anyone at the time of the seizure;
7. other evidence showing the basis for the seizure.

At the APH, the court must decide whether there is probable cause to believe that the property was employed or likely to be employed in criminal activity and whether the information supporting probable cause was gathered legally.

When it comes to vehicles, for example, Fla. Stat. 932.702 makes it unlawful to possess, conceal, use, or transport any contraband in a motor vehicle within the State of Florida. Other provisions apply to U.S. currency and other forms of property that might be seized.

Read more about vehicle and property seizures for forfeiture by FHP’s Criminal Contraband Interdiction Unit.

10-day Deadline to Schedule the APH

When the agency receives the demand for the adversarial preliminary hearing, it must schedule the hearing within ten business (10) days or as soon as practicable thereafter. That ten (10) day rule is found in Section 932.703(3)(a), Florida Statutes.

The seizing agencies often fail to promptly request an emergency hearing so the court may schedule it within the ten (10) working day deadline. Even when the seizing agency requests it immediately, the court might fail to provide hearing dates within the allotted time. 

Because forfeitures are not favored in law or equity, they must be strictly construed. Hernandez v. City of Miami Beach, 23 So. 3d 163, 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). The Florida Supreme Court has strictly construed the forfeiture statutes because forfeiture actions are harsh exactions and are generally not favored in either law or equity. See Murphy v. Fortune, 857 So. 2d 370, 371 (Fla.1st DCA 2003). In Murphy, the court found the failure to hold a timely adversarial preliminary hearing mandated the return of seized money. Id. at 371.

When the agency misses this deadline, it might argue the adversarial preliminary hearing was held “as soon as practicable” after the 10 day deadline. First, the agency is NOT allowed to file a motion pursuant to Rule 1.090(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking an enlargement of time due to excusable neglect. That type of motion does not apply to the enlargement of deadlines set by statute. See Samad v. Pla, 267 So. 3d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).

Second, the deadline has been interpreted to mean that the hearing must be held by the tenth day, unless there is good cause to go beyond the ten-day deadline. Hernandez, 23 So. 3d at 165. Good cause requires the seizing agency to promptly request an emergency hearing so the court can schedule a timely hearing. Id. at 166. (“The best practice is represented by the City of Homestead, which made its emergency hearing request within twenty-four hours.”).

In Chuck v. City of Homestead Police Dept., 888 So. 2d 736, 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), the court found that hearings occurred as soon as practicable where the seizing authorities acted immediately in notifying the court of the need to schedule a hearing within the statutorily required ten days.

The courts have reasoned that the seizing agency should be prepared to act quickly if a hearing is requested. Hernandez, 23 So. 3d at 166. In Murphy, 857 So. 2d at 371, the court found:

“The Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act does not authorize government entities to delay acting on a claimant’s request for an adversarial hearing for reasons such as internal scheduling, agency, attorney, or officer workload, or agency or police procedures, which result in the court’s inability to schedule a timely hearing.”

Any unreasonable delay between the claimant’s request for a hearing and the hearing being held constitutes a denial of due process. Id.

In State Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Metiver, 684 So. 2d 204, 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), the court found the burden must fall on the seizing agency to see that the adversarial preliminary hearing takes place as soon as possible, and the burden is on the agency to demonstrate that the hearing was timely held. Where the hearing was set five (5) days past the 10-day deadline, the Metiver court affirmed the trial court’s order granting the claimant’s motion to dismiss and requiring the return of the seized property.

Claimants Entitled to Notice of the APH

Rule 1.090(d) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Florida case law have established that a Claimant requesting an Adversarial Preliminary Hearing is entitled to notice that shall be served a reasonable time before the time specified for the hearing. See Crepage v City of Lauderhill, 774 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (holding that twenty-four (24) hours notice of the Adversarial Preliminary Hearing was not sufficient notice and violated the Claimant’s procedural due process rights).

The Crepage court reasoned:

The proceeding here was not just an advisory hearing or a status conference. It was an evidentiary hearing, requiring the attendance of witnesses and production of affidavits, documents, and other evidence. At an adversarial preliminary hearing in forfeiture cases, the claimant has the right to challenge the legality of a stop and raise other Fourth Amendment issues in determining whether there was probable cause for forfeiture. See Golon v. Jenne, 739 So.2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (validity of the stop and search are inextriably bound up with the probable cause determination required by the Act); Indialantic Police Dep’t. v. Zimmerman, 677 So.2d 1307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (in vehicle forfeiture proceeding owner was entitled to cross-examine officer on Fourth Amendment issues).

Thus, the claimant must be given reasonable notice and adequate time to prepare for examining his or her witnesses and cross-examining the government’s witnesses. While we do not draw a bright line as to what amount of notice is reasonable, we hold that twenty-four hours’ notice of an adversarial preliminary hearing, where suppression issues are likely to be litigated, is insufficient.

Id. at 65.

The court in Crepage also found that “a person entitled to notice” who requests an adversarial notice, upon request, should be served with a copy of any application, complaint, verified affidavits, and other documents when the agency provides those documents to the court.

Fourth Amendment Issues Apply to Forfeiture Proceedings

One way to win the adversarial preliminary hearing (APH) is to show that the property was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment and should be excluded.

If the seizing agency argues that “probable cause” supported the seizure, the claimant might argue that the officer illegally gathered the information used to develop the probable cause. Such evidence must be suppressed as the “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to forfeiture proceedings. As a result, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded from the probable cause determination at the adversarial preliminary hearing. Golon v. Jenne, 739 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

“Indeed, longstanding precedent provides that evidence derived from a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded at a hearing determining whether the government has probable cause for forfeiture.” Id.

In Golon v. Jenne, 739 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), the Fourth District reviewed the procedural protections associated with forfeiture proceedings set forth in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The court found “no direct authority for the requirement that a claimant must file a motion to suppress or other responsive pleading in order to raise Fourth Amendment issues at an adversarial preliminary hearing.” Id. at 663.

When the search is illegal, any evidence or contraband discovered by such a search cannot stand. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081 (1961).

Because the exclusionary rule applies to forfeiture proceedings, any evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded from the probable cause determination at an adversarial preliminary hearing. See In re Forfeiture of 1999 Dodge Intrepid, 934 So. 2d 669, 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

In Indialantic Police Dep’t v. Zimmerman, 677 So. 2d 1307, 1309 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), the court concluded that the “validity of the stop and search are inextricably bound up with the probable cause determination required by the Act.”

As such, the order finding probable cause under the Forfeiture Act for the continued seizure of the property is appealable because it determines “the right to immediate possession of property.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii). The scope of the appeal might include any denial of the motion to suppress because evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded from a determination of probable cause under the Forfeiture Act. See Toussaint v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 215 So. 3d 602, 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

If your rights were violated, your attorney can argue the Fourth Amendment violations at the APH. If a complaint is filed, the issues can be raised in a written motion to suppress after completing the discovery process.

What is “Probable Cause” at the APH?

Under Section 932.701(12)(f), the term “adversarial preliminary hearing” means a hearing in which the seizing agency is required to establish probable cause that the property subject to forfeiture was used in violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.

In a forfeiture proceeding, due process requires the state to establish probable cause to believe the property was used in the commission of a crime. Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957 (Fla. 1991).

The agency can show probable cause for belief that the property is subject to forfeiture “based upon a reasonable ground for belief that it was furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for drugs.'” Lobo v. Metro-Dade Police Department, 505 So.2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

This determination of probable cause involves the question of whether, under the totality of the facts presented, the information relied upon by the government is adequate and sufficiently reliable to warrant the belief by a reasonable person that a violation of the Forfeiture Act has occurred. Id.

It is well settled that “[p]robable cause must be judged not with clinical detachment, but with a common sense view to the realities of normal life,” United States v. Four Million, Two Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand, 762 F.2d 895, 904 (11th Cir. 1985).

To determine whether the facts are sufficient, the court must “weigh not the individual layers but the ‘laminated’ total.” United States v. Sixty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Dollars, 815 F. Supp. 1479 (M.D. Ga. 1993) (citing U.S. v. Nigro, 727 F.2d 100, 104 (6th Cir. 1984)).

“In order to consider the `laminate whole,’ we must include all probative evidence in the calculus . . . . [t]herefore, we review each piece of evidence separately only to determine whether it is probative, not whether it establishes probable cause standing alone.” United States v. $67,220.00 In United States Currency, 957 F.2d 280 (6th Cir. 1992).

The courts have concluded that the pertinent inquiry at the adversarial preliminary hearing is “whether there ‘is’ probable cause to believe that a violation of the Act occurred or is occurring, not whether there ‘was’ probable cause to believe that a violation of the Act occurred at the time of seizure.” Beary v. Bruce, 804 So. 2d 579, 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

In City of Coral Springs v. Forfeiture of a 1997 Ford Ranger Pickup Truck VIN No. 1FTCR10A4VTA62475 FL Tag 3U1 6BDE, 803 So. 2d 847, 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), the court found that the most important question is “whether the information relied upon by the state is adequate and sufficiently reliable to warrant the belief by a reasonable person that a violation has occurred.”

When the State cannot establish probable cause of a statutory violation early in the proceedings, its seizure of the property ends without the delay that would accompany a forfeiture trial. Real Property, 588 So. 2d at 957.

Two Stages of a Forfeiture Case in Florida

To effectuate a forfeiture under the Act, the seizing agency must engage in two (2) stages – the seizure stage and a forfeiture stage.

At the seizure stage, the court must determine “whether there is probable cause to believe that the property has been used in violation of the Act.” In re Forfeiture of: $221,898 in U.S. Currency, 106 So. 3d 47, 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

The required showing is something “less than a prima facie case, but more than a mere suspicion.” In re Forfeiture of Seven Thousand Dollars U.S. Currency, 942 So. 2d 1039, 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

If probable cause exists, the matter then proceeds to a subsequently scheduled forfeiture proceeding, during which “the court or jury determines whether the subject property shall be forfeited.” Velez v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Police Dep’t, 934 So. 2d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 2006).

Due Process Requires Notice of the Forfeiture Action

Because due process requires that anyone with an interest in the property be provided with notice and the opportunity to be heard at each stage of the proceeding.

The Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act gives interested persons the right to litigate the issue of probable cause at an adversarial preliminary hearing. City of Fort Lauderdale v. Baruch, 718 So. 2d 843, 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

“The focus of the statute is on the evidence of probable cause that exists at the time of the adversarial preliminary hearing, not just what the police officers knew at the time the property was seized.” Sanchez v. City of West Palm Beach, 149 So. 3d 92, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

What if a Notice of Seizure is Never Provided to the Owner?

The Florida Supreme Court has been clear that an owner or one in possession of seized property is entitled to an APH and the county is unable to avoid an APH by failing to give notice to the owner or person in possession of the property. Velez v. Miami-Dade County Police Department, 934 So.2d 1162, 1164-1166 (Fla. 2006).

Due process under the Florida Constitution and Florida statute requires that any “person entitled to notice” (which includes, among others, any “owner” or “person in possession” of the property) under the Forfeiture Act “receive notice and an opportunity to be heard in an adversarial proceeding.” See Id. at 1165; see also § 932.703(3)(a), Fla. Stat.

Florida courts do not permit the seizing agency to avoid the notice requirements or avoid an APH:

It is in the interest of a seizing agency to aggressively notice all potential claimants, to cash a wide net for “persons entitled to notice” under the statute, since a later finding of lack of diligence would vitiate the entire forfeiture proceeding. Any interpretation of the statute which permitted a seizing agency to tiptoe around the notice requirement would eviscerate the statutory intent to provide a speedy preliminary hearing and would run afoul of the procedural due process requirement of Article 1, Section 9, of the Florida Constitution.

Velez, 934 So.2d at 1165-1166 (citing City of Fort Lauderdale v. Baruch, 718 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)).

The Rules Must be Strictly Construed in Favor of the Claimant

Indeed, property rights are among the basic substantive rights expressly protected by the Florida Constitution. Art. I, § 2, Fla. Const.

In Shriners Hosps. for Crippled Children v. Zrillic, 563 So. 2d 64, 68 (Fla. 1990), the court found that article I, section 2 protects all incidents of property ownership from infringement by the state unless regulations are reasonably necessary to secure the health, safety, good order, and general welfare of the public.

Forfeiture is penal in nature and must be strictly construed in favor of those against whom the penalty is to be imposed. See In Re: FORFEITURE OF $37.388.00, 571 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

The Innocent Owner Defense in Asset Forfeiture Cases

The seizing agency is not necessarily required to overcome an innocent owner defense at the adversarial preliminary hearing.

At trial in a forfeiture case, however, the seizing agency must not only prove that the property was in fact being used to conceal, transport or possess contraband, it must also prove that the owner or owners knew or should have known that the property was being used or was likely to be used for an illegal purpose.

Innocent Owners of Vehicles Seized for Forfeiture Proceedings

What happens if the owner of the property is NOT served with a notice of the seizure? The Supreme Court of Florida has held that, with respect to motor vehicles being forfeited under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, the term “owner” includes the person who has obtained a title certificate issued pursuant to Chapter 319. Cobbs v. Johnson, 605 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

The trial judge will consider who holds the certificate of title to the motor vehicle in their name (even if another person is considered to be the de facto owner) and whether the knowledge of the unlawful use of the vehicle was sufficient to allow the forfeiture.

The First District in Cobbs held that Florida’s civil asset forfeiture statutes do not allow a distinction between de facto and de jure owners and that, for purposes of the Forfeiture Act, the owner is the person identified in the certificate of title.

Therefore, Florida law is clear that the person named on the certificate of title must be considered the sole owner of the vehicle, and the seizing agency has the burden to demonstrate that the owner is not an “innocent owner.”

What is the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act?

Florida’s Contraband Forfeiture Act provides that contraband articles shall be seized and forfeited as follows:

Section 932.703 Forfeiture of contraband articles; exceptions. (1)(a) Any contraband article . . . motor vehicle . . . other personal property . . .used in violation of any provision of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act . . .may be seized and shall be forfeited subject to the provisions of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.

Section 932.701(2)(a) of the Florida Statutes defines the term “contraband article” as follows:

Short title; definitions . . .

(2) As used in the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act:

(a) “Contraband article” means: “Any personal property, including, but not limited to ….which was used or was attempted to be used as an instrumentality in the commission of, or in aiding or abetting in the commission of, any felony, whether or not comprising an element of the felony, or which is acquired by proceeds obtained as a result of a violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.

Sample Form Requesting an Adversarial Preliminary Hearing

In most cases, the Claimant’s attorney sends a request for an adversarial preliminary hearing to the agency at the address included in the notice of seizure.

Date: _________

Sent Via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested ____________________

From:

To: [[list the address included in the notice of seizure]]

Re: Request for Adversarial Preliminary Hearing

Re: Agency Case Number _________

YOU ARE NOTIFIED that pursuant to Florida Statute Section 932.703(2)(a), [insert name of Claimant] (hereinafter “Claimant”), hereby requests an Adversarial Preliminary Hearing regarding the seizure for forfeiture of the seized property described as follows: ___________ (hereinafter “seized property”).

• ___ The seized property is referenced in the Notice of Seizure attached as Exhibit “A”; or
• ___ No notice of seizure was ever provided to the Claimant despite the fact that pursuant to Florida Statute Section 932.701(2)(e), F.S., the Claimant qualifies as a “person entitled to notice” because they are an “owner, entity, bona fide lienholder, or person in possession of the property subject to forfeiture when seized…” [[Explain the facts showing why Claimant is a “person entitled to notice”. 

Second Sample Form Requesting for an Adversarial Preliminary Hearing

The request for an adversarial preliminary hearing might be filed under the case number pending in Circuit Court, if known.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ______ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR _______ COUNTY, FLORIDA

CIRCUIT CIVIL

In Re:                                                                               Agency #: 2024——

Civil Asset Forfeiture of

_________________________,

 _____________________________/             

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND

REQUEST FOR AN ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING

         COMES NOW, ______________, (hereinafter “the Claimant”), as the person having a possessory, legal, and beneficial interest in $_______ in U.S. Currency or other property described as ___________, by and through the undersigned counsel, who hereby files this Notice of Appearance and Demand for Adversarial Preliminary Hearing.

In support of this notice and demand, the Claimant states the following:

1. On [date and time], several officers with [name of the law enforcement agency] seized $______ in U.S. Currency or other property described as ________________ (hereinafter “seized property”).
2. The seized property is owned by and belongs to the Claimant.
3. The seized property was taken from the Claimant at [address] in  _______ County, FL.
4. The following law enforcement officers took the seized property: [name each officer].
5. The seized property was taken without probable cause or other sufficient legal basis under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.
6. After the seized property was taken, the Claimant received a “Notice of Seizure” for a violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act (attached as Exhibit “A”).
7. The claimant hereby demands an Adversarial Preliminary Hearing for the seized property.
8. This demand for the Adversarial Preliminary Hearing complies with the fifteen (15) day requirement outlined in the Notice.
9. Please be advised that Leslie M. Sammis, on behalf of Sammis Law Firm, P.A., hereby enters its appearance in the above-styled cause as the attorney for the Claimant in this forfeiture case and for purposes of any criminal investigation related to the seizure and directs that copies of all notices, pleadings, and proceedings be served upon it.

WHEREFORE, the Claimant requests an Adversarial Preliminary Hearing for the seized property described herein. The Claimant requests that the hearing be set within ten (10) days or as soon as practicable thereafter as required by Section 932.703(3)(a), Florida Statutes.

Respectfully Submitted,

[[insert signature line]]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

         I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Request for Adverse Preliminary Hearing has been furnished by First Class U.S. Mail, certified return receipt requested, to the following address listed in the notice: _____________________, on this __ day of _____, 2023.

[[insert signature line]]

This article was last updated on Wednesday, November 27, 2024.