Seizure for Forfeiture by Broward Sheriff’s Office

If you received a notice of seizure from the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, contact an experienced attorney at Sammis Law Firm. For forfeitures at the state level, the officer who seized the property must provide you with a receipt that might use the term “forfeiture hold.”

Next, the agency that seized the property must send you a “notice of seizure” explaining your right to an adversarial preliminary hearing (sometimes called the “APH”).

The notice says it is “not necessary to request an adversarial preliminary hearing.” Still, if you want to get the property back quickly, you SHOULD ALWAYS demand the APH within the fifteen (15) day deadline.

You should act quickly because you only have fifteen (15) days to file a demand for the adversarial preliminary hearing (APH). If you miss that fifteen (15) day deadline, it becomes more difficult to get the property back.

We can help you demand the APH hearing even if you didn’t receive a receipt or notice of seizure. We can also help you even if you signed a waiver disclaiming any interest in the property.

At the adversarial preliminary hearing, we can help you contest the legality of your initial detention and the warrantless seizure of your property.

If you prevail at the hearing, the court will order the Broward County Sheriff’s Office to return the property immediately and pay your attorney fees as required by statute.

An attorney can also help you obtain any surveillance video showing how you were initially detained. For instance, your attorney can help you obtain surveillance videos of the detention and seizure from Broward County’s Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) or North Perry Airport (HWO).

Lawyers for Forfeiture Seizures in Broward County, FL

If officers with the Broward County Sheriff’s Office confiscated your U.S. Currency, vehicle, or other valuable property, call us to discuss fighting the case.

In these cases, we can help you show that the initial detention was illegal, the officers had no valid basis to search without a warrant, or illegally gathered evidence should be suppressed or excluded.

Contact us to find out more about your right to file a demand for an adversarial preliminary hearing before a circuit court judge to determine whether there is probable cause to seize the subject properly.

We can represent you if the sheriff’s office files a forfeiture complaint filed within 45 days of the seizure. If a complaint is filed, we can help you file a claim, answer, motion to suppress, and motion to dismiss.

We can help you obtain the seizing agent’s report and other discovery in the forfeiture proceeding, including the right to question the witnesses for the Broward County Sheriff’s Office under oath during depositions.

You have a right to have a jury determine whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the subject property is contraband subject to forfeiture to the Broward County Sheriff’s Office and the right to require the entry of a Final Judgment of Forfeiture on the subject property.

Call us at 813-250-0500.

Filing the Demand for the Adversarial Preliminary Hearing

Suppose you received a notice of seizure after a deputy with the Broward County Sheriff’s Office confiscated your property for a civil asset forfeiture proceeding. In that case, the notice will explain when, where, and how to file the demand.

We carefully follow those instructions on the notice of seizure. The notice requires you to send the demand for the adversarial preliminary hearing to the following address:

Legal Dept. – Forfeiture Section
Broward County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO)
2601 W. Broward Blvd.
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312

After we file the demand for the adversarial preliminary hearing, an attorney who works for the Confiscation/Forfeiture Unit of the Office of the General Counsel for the Broward County Sheriff’s Office will call us.

During that first phone call, the BSO attorney usually asks us to delay the hearing outside the statutory ten (10) day deadline. We rarely agree to waive that ten (10) deadline.

At the APH, we can obtain the reports related to the seizure and cross-examine all officers involved. Hopefully, you win the seizure, but if not, you can still gather valuable information to help you challenge the seizure during a motion to suppress evidence, a motion to dismiss the complaint or a jury trial on the merits.

Read more about forfeiture seizures at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport by BSO.

Forfeiture Seizures at the Airport by the Broward County Sheriff’s Office

What happens if you bring a large amount of U.S. Currency to the Fort Lauderdale/ Hollywood International Airport (FLL) located at 200 Terminal Drive, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315?

Although it is not illegal to bring a large amount of cash to the airport, it might be seized if law enforcement officers with the Broward County Sheriff’s Office suspect it is involved in drug trafficking or money laundering.

Alternatively, the money might be seized before or after an international flight if any amount over $10,000 was not disclosed to Customs and Border Protection on the FinCEN 105 form.

How is the money discovered? Most of the time, a screener working for TSA will discover that the passenger is carrying a large amount of cash while the passenger goes through the security checkpoint.

The scanning equipment can detect the amount of currency on a passenger’s person or luggage. TSA is not allowed to seize money at the airport. TSA is not even allowed to detain the passenger merely for possessing a large amount of U.S. Currency. 

Instead, the TSA agent might secretly contact a detective with the Broward County Sheriff’s Office serving on the Strategic Investigations Division of the Narcotics Interdiction Task Force (also known as “NITF”). The BSO NITF detectives conduct “airport interdictions” at the airport. 

After getting the secret tip from the TSA agent, the detective will head to the gate, looking for this passenger to seize the cash in their possession for forfeiture.  Instead of admitting that the TSA screener gave a secret tip, the NITF Detectives might claim they just happened to be conducting “random consensual encounters” at the FLL Terminal.

What is Broward’s Narcotics Interdiction Task Force?

What is the NITF? The Narcotics Interdiction Task Force is a multi-agency task force administered by the Broward Sheriff’s Office task force. The task force comprises local law enforcement agencies working with state and federal law enforcement agencies. 

The task force is responsible for detecting, investigating, and prosecuting crimes at airports, seaports, and parcel shipment facilities. Those crimes investigated by NITF might include:

• narcotics offenses
• unlicensed money transmitting
• money laundering

Detectives on the NITF are sworn law enforcement officers with the United States Department of Homeland Security. All NITF personnel dress in plain clothes while working undercover, with no visible police identifications, guns, or radios displayed.

How Does the Broward County Sheriff’s Office Use a K9 Drug Dog?

BSO uses a narcotic detector K9 handler, which might be asked to deploy his K9. The K9 handlers are required to attend detector dog training along with other courses in narcotic detection. The K9 handler should also attend weekly detector dog training with other Broward County narcotic detector canines and handlers.

The purpose of the weekly training is to show the K9 can consistently alert to the specified illegal drugs without being distracted by masking agents associated with the packaging of these drugs. At the same time, the training should determine whether the K9 gives false alerts when no drugs are present.

Although not effectively addressed in the weekly training sessions, false alerts in the field occur when the K9 is influenced by other factors, such as pleasing the handler. Other problems occur when the handler mistakenly misinterprets the K9’s behavior as an alert. Of course, the handler might also claim the K9 alerted when the handler knows the K9 did not give the alert. 

BSO requires the K9 to be proofed off currency during weekly maintenance K-9 training, although the K9 is not specifically trained for currency detection.

The K9 employed with the Broward County Sheriff’s Office typically completes a five-week narcotic detector dog course. The dogs are often certified by the United States Police Canine Association. 

The K9 is trained to detect cocaine, marijuana, heroin, hashish, methamphetamine, and their derivatives. Additionally, the K9 is continuously trained with various amounts (small to large) of the phantom odors of each illegal drug that it is trained to detect. BSO claims that various training methods are utilized in such a manner to maintain “the highest level of proficiency in detection for the K9.” 

The Broward County Sheriff’s Office will claim that service records (Training Logs and Canine Usage Logs) are maintained throughout the law enforcement service lifetime of the K9 and must be kept up to date.

The K9s usually graduate from Detector Dog School. For this reason, BSO will claim that the K9 has been proven reliable in narcotics investigations and has detected hundreds of pounds of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine during numerous live searches.

During these investigations, the detectives will often claim that the K9 indicated a positive alert for the presence of narcotics odor on a passenger’s luggage and sometimes to the money itself. 

For several reasons, the courts are skeptical about whether this evidence from the K9 alert is relevant to the probable cause determination for the following reasons:

1. First, the handlers often neglect to keep proper records of “false positive” alerts.
2. Second, most of the alerts at the airport are “false positive” alerts to phantom smells, which can never be confirmed by the handler when no drugs are found.
3. Third, what does it matter that the K9 can alert to phantom smells of marijuana when marijuana is legally used throughout Florida and the rest of the United States? Such phantom smells would be common and not particularly helpful for probable cause determinations.
4. Fourth, the dogs have no formal training in currency detection.

Nevertheless, the detectives with the BSO use the drug dogs because it might help them establish “probable cause” to seize the money.

Narcotics Interdictions at the Airport in Broward County

What happens when money is seized at Broward County’s Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) or North Perry Airport (HWO)?

The detectives will approach the passenger, present his law enforcement credentials, and identify himself as a BSO Detective. Then, the detective might tell the passenger that a narcotics K9 alerted to his person, checked luggage, or carry-on suitcase. 

The detective will ask the passenger for their boarding pass and driver’s license. The detective might also ask the passenger if the bag belongs to them and if they packed it. At this point, the detective might ask to search and claim that the passenger gave free and voluntary consent.

Why is consent important? In most cases, the officer is not allowed to seize the money without a warrant unless the officer has free and voluntary consent. For this reason, some passengers simply say: “I do not answer personal questions. I do not consent to searches. I am leaving now so that I can catch my flight.” Once the officer realizes that the person will not consent, they might let the person go on their way and end the detention.

Why doesn’t everyone remain silent and walk away? The officers are very good at using their body language and words to persuade the passenger to “consent” to a search by increasing the pressure put on the passenger. However, if the officer continues the detention without consent, all evidence gathered after that is subject to suppression. For that reason, the person has the right to continue not to answer questions or to refuse to consent to a search throughout the rest of the encounter.

The officers might photograph the driver’s license digitally before returning it to the passenger. Or the detective might keep the driver’s license as the investigation continues. The detective might ask the passenger if there was any reason why a narcotics K9 would alert to the suitcase. Sometimes, the passenger will admit to previously smoking marijuana (when no response to that question is required).

These officers never read Miranda warnings because they have no intention of making an arrest. Their main goal is to seize the money, and Miranda warnings are not always required in forfeiture cases.

Also, by accusing the person of trafficking drugs in the suitcase (which the passenger knows to be false), it increases the likelihood that the passenger will say: “Go ahead and search because that is a false allegation.” The better course of action might be to continue to say: “I don’t consent to searches” each time consent is requested.

Other questions the BSO officer might ask include:

• Are you traveling for business or pleasure?
• How long is the trip?
• When did you purchase the ticket?
• Are you traveling with anyone else?
• Have you arranged for a hotel when you get to your destination?
• Are you renting a vehicle?
• Where do you work?
• What is the name and phone number of your employer?
• Did you file your taxes last year?
• How much income did you claim on your taxes?
• Who does this money belong to?
• When was it last in the bank?

The detectives might even ask the passenger to pull up bank records on their cell phone and then seize it as evidence. The detective might claim that they can also smell an odor of marijuana emanating from the passenger or his luggage. 

The detectives will note how the U.S. Currency is packaged or concealed and whether rubber bands were used. The officers will note the demonizations of each bill. 

The detectives might then claim that the K9 alerted to the money itself and claim that the positive alert is an indication that the currency was recently close to a significant amount of illegal narcotics.

Reasons Not to Answer Questions

One of the main reasons not to answer questions is because the agent will use any statement against you. On the other hand, “self-serving” statements are often discounted and might even be inadmissible in court.

Additionally, the BSO detective might use the fact that you made statements against you by claiming that you became “extremely nervous” when talking about the origin of the currency and what it was supposed to be utilized for. 

We often see allegations in the seizing agent’s report that the passenger’s hands were visibly shaking while speaking with the detective. The detective might claim that the passenger was very vague about questions relating to transporting the currency and was unable to provide any documentation or any set travel itinerary as to where he was going to stay.

The detective will claim the passenger displayed various signs of deception, gave vague answers, or showed unusual body language, including a defensive body posture with arms braced and crossed and constant fidgeting. 

Your attorney can file a motion to obtain surveillance video from the airport within 30 days of the seizure. The surveillance video often contradicts allegations made by law enforcement officers in this regard.

The detective will claim extensive training in narcotics investigations, interviewing subjects, and recognizing common signs of deception involving untruthful subjects. In Broward County, the detectives often present the passenger with a BSO seized property notice and ownership disclaimer form to waive any interest in the property. 

For these reasons, it is often better to refuse to answer questions by saying: “I do not answer personal questions.” Then, remain silent or ask if you are free to leave.

What Happens to the Money Seized by the Broward County Sheriff’s Office?

After seizing the money for forfeiture, the detective will verify the currency on scene and seal it into a Broward Sheriff’s Office (BSO) clear plastic self-sealing evidence bag with a particular serial number while in the presence of another officer. 

The detective will then transport the U.S. currency to the BSO Evidence Unit, where they will conduct an official count. The complaint will often allege:

“Based upon the training and experience of the NITF Detectives with the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, it is common for persons with large amounts of currency in hand to travel out of the Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport to known source states involved in marijuana distribution, specifically California.

Once the traveler makes it to the source state, they purchase large quantities of narcotics using the bulk currency in hand and ship it back to the state of Florida via a parcel facility such as FedEx, UPS, U.S. Postal Service or even travel with the narcotics in their luggage.

This type of activity is consistent with narcotics trafficking. Transportation of currency in this pretext is illegal and violates Florida’s Anti­ Money Laundering Statutes in Chapter 896, Florida Statutes.

Air transportation of currency earned from narcotics sales is more difficult to trace by law enforcement and leaves less of a “paper trail” than conventional methods of transmitting currency by personal check, money order, cashier’s check, and other bank wiring services-all of which are more secure, less burdensome, and more cost effective then purchasing a plane ticket and traveling several hours across the country.

Wiring or obtaining a cashier’s check at a financial institution for a large amount of currency would have generated a “currency transaction report” (CTR) which requires identification and provides notification to the Federal government of the transaction.

A CTR is a report that U.S. financial institutions are required to file with Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (Fin CEN) for each deposit, withdrawal, exchange of currency, or other payment or transfer, by, through or to the financial institution which involves a transaction in currency of more than $10,000.

Financial Institutions, including money service businesses, must complete a Currency Transaction Report, or CTR, for all currency transactions in excess of $10,000.00. See 31 U.S.C. §5313; 31 C.F.R. § 103.22.

Notifying local or Federal law enforcement authorities of a substantial currency exchange is something those who deal in narcotics or illicit proceeds want to avoid at all costs.

The passenger does not have a license to transport currency as a money service business in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1960 and Florida Statute. §560.125.”

Forfeiture Settlement Agreement with the Broward County Sheriff’s Office

In some cases, the attorney for the Broward County Sheriff’s Office might negotiate or agree to enter a settlement agreement before the APH. The settlement agreement might provide the following:

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is made by and between GREGORY TONY, as Sheriff of Broward County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as “SHERIFF”) and ______ (hereinafter referred to as “CLAIMANT”) on this ___ day of _____, 2022.

WHEREAS, SHERIFF and CLAIMANT agree that SHERIFF may pursue forfeiture of the property described in paragraph l, below, pursuant to the provisions set forth in the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, Section 932.701, et seq., Florida Statutes; and

WHEREAS, SHERIFF and CLAIMANT, acknowledge the benefits inuring to each other by avoiding forfeiture litigation, and in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises which are herein contained.

1. That the property, which is the subject matter of this litigation and this Agreement is as follows: $______ in U.S. Currency.
2. That as to the personal property described above, some was seized by Sheriff’s deputies on or about ______________ under Broward Sheriff’s Office Case No. _______ pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.
3. That as to the subject personal property as described above, CLAIMANT is the only person who has made a bona fide claim thereto.
4. That SHERIFF agrees to surrender whatever right, title, or interest SHERIFF may have by operation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act in and to the personal property as described below:$______ in U.S. currency (which said sum constitutes a part of the subject currency as described above, the payment of which shall be made no later than thirty (30) days following the execution of the settlement agreement and made payable to the order of: ___________.
5. That CLAIMANT agrees to surrender whatever right, title, or interest CLAIMANT may have in or to the balance of the subject currency as described above, to wit:  $______ in U.S. currency.
6. CLAIMANT agrees that the subject currency in the listed amount is to be forfeited to the BSO LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST FUND pursuant to Chapter 932, Florida Statutes (2021).
7. CLAIMANT hereby acknowledges that this Agreement is being entered into in lieu of and prior to the conclusion of the forfeiture proceedings.
8. CLAIMANT understands that if any property subject to this agreement has been listed as evidence in any criminal proceeding or was seized and is being held as evidence in anticipation of any criminal proceeding, CLAIMANT expressly acknowledges the following:
   • Right to an adversarial preliminary hearing before a circuit court judge to determine whether there is probable cause to seize the subject properly;
   • Right to have a forfeiture complaint filed within 45 days of the seizure;
   • Right to discovery in the forfeiture proceeding, including the right to question SHERIFF’s witnesses;
   • Right to have a jury determine whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the subject property is contraband subject to forfeiture to the SHERIFF; and
   • Right to require the entry of a Final Judgment of Forfeiture on the subject property.
9. CLAIMANT knows and understands that Florida Statutes Section 925.11 and 925.12 provide for post-sentencing DNA testing of physical evidence, under specific circumstances;
10. CLAIMANT expressly waives his right to petition the court for post-sentencing DNA testing of the property subject to this agreement;
11. Broward Sheriff’s Office does not make any representations as to whether the physical evidence subject to this agreement contains or does not contain DNA that could exonerate the CLAIMANT in an ongoing criminal proceeding or future criminal proceeding involving the property subject to this agreement.
12. CLAIMANT acknowledges that CLAIMANT has a right to representation when entering into this Agreement and hereby knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily enters into this Agreement on the advice of counsel.
13. CLAIMANT hereby acknowledges that CLAIMANT has a right to have this Settlement Agreement reviewed by a mediator or arbitrator, and further acknowledges waiving this right.
14. That CLAIMANT agrees to hold harmless and indemnify SHERIFF or any of SHERIFF’S deputies, attorneys, employees, servants, agents. or officers against any and all damages, actions, suits, claims, or demands of whatsoever kind made by or on behalf of any person as a result of SHERIFF seizing, retaining and/or returning possession of any of the above-described personal property to CLAIMANT, including. but not limited to, reasonable
    attorney’s fees and travel and investigative expenses caused by or related to such damages, actions, suits, claims, or demands.
15. The parties understand and agree that this Settlement Agreement is for the sole purpose of avoiding the expense and uncertainties in any litigation and that it is not to reflect on the strengths or weaknesses of any related criminal charges either currently pending or which may be brought in the future, and as such Claimant agrees that the return of a portion of the seized property to CLAIMANT is not evidence that such property is not connected to criminal activity.
16. By entering into this agreement, the Claimant makes no admission of guilt or liability.

Any such settlement agreement is reached between the Claimant, the Claimant’s attorney, and the GREGORY TONY SHERIFF OF BROWARD COUNTY or the attorney acting as Assistant General Counsel for the Broward County Sheriff’s Office.

BCSO’s Affidavit in Support of Probable Cause for Forfeiture

After the seizure, the Broward County Sheriff’s Office will file an affidavit in support of probable cause for forfeiture. Most of the affidavit contains boilerplate information from a template. The affidavit will contain a section about the seizing agent’s background. It might also include the following boilerplate information:

1. On [insert date], the following property (hereinafter referred to as the “Seized Property”) was seized as a contraband article pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act: $[insert amount] in United States Currency.
2. Your Affiants assert that they have probable cause to believe and do believe that the Seized Property has become and is a contraband article subject to seizure and forfeiture pursuant to § 932.701 et seq., the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, Fla. Stat. (2022), in that the Seized Property was used, is being used, was attempted, or intended to be used in violation of any provision of Chapter 893, abd became a contraband article, whether or not the use of the contraband article can be traced to a specific narcotics transaction. § 932.701(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022).
3. On or about [insert date], the currency was possessed, concealed, or conveyed as a contraband article in violation of Chapter 932, the totality of the circumstances being such as to establish a cause of action demonstrating a nexus between the currency and a Chapter 893 narcotics violation, in that the currency had been, was being, or was intended to be used in violation of Chapter 893, either as proceeds from the sale of a controlled substance, or as funds to be used in the purchase of same.
4. The Sheriff’s burden of proof may be satisfied by the aggregation of facts, even if each fact, standing alone, may be insufficient to meet the government’s burden. To determine whether the information is sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that a nexus exists between the article seized and the narcotics activity, a court must weigh not the individual layers but the “laminated total.” State of Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Holquin, 909 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2005).
5. In Holguin, the appellate court reversed a trial court’s order denying probable cause to seize currency and maintain a forfeiture action. The court held that subsequent to a routine traffic stop, an alert by a trained, experienced narcotics dog coupled with the packaging of large amounts of money in rubber bands and inconsistent explanations for the money were sufficient to give rise to probable cause. In that case, no drugs were ever found in the car or in the possession of Holguin, but the totality of facts established probable cause that the currency has a nexus to a narcotics transaction.
6.  In Miami-Dade Police Department v. In re Forteiture of $15,875.51, 54 So. 3d 595 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2011), the appellate court reversed the trial court’s ruling that no probable cause existed to maintain a forfeiture action involving currency. The appellate court found the following facts sufficient to establish probable cause:
   • odor of raw marijuana;
   • a subsequent search revealed one gram of marijuana;
   • a bag with $10,000.00 secured with rubber bands in quick count bundles, a packaging method commonly used in the narcotics trade;
   • additional currency in the amount of $_______ in right front pocket and $______ in left front pocket of the claimant;
   • inconsistent explanations as to the source and use of the currency; and
   • a K-9 alerted to the currency for the odor of narcotics.
7. In addition, on or about [insert date], the currency used or attempted to be used as an instrumentality in the commission of, or in aiding or abetting in the commission of a felony, to wit “Money Laundering” by transporting or attempt to transport a monetary instrument or funds with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity §896.101 (3) (b) (1), Fla. Stat. (2021).
8. Monetary instruments used in violation of any crime listed as “specified unlawful activity” are subject to civil forfeiture action. §896.101 (8) (a), Fla. Stat. (2021). “Specified unlawful activity” means any, “racketeering activity” as defined in Florida State Statutes §895.02 (50) (b) includes any act which is indictable under the Illegal Money Transmitters (Title 18 U.S.C. 1960 §§et. Seq.).
9. Under the Prohibition of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Businesses Act, Title 18 U.S.C. § 1960, states, “whoever knowingly conducts all or part of an unlicensed money transmitting business without an appropriate money transmitting license in a State where such operation is punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony under state law, whether or not the defendant knew that the operation was required to be licensed or that the operation was so punishable, shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than five (5) years or both.
10. On or about [insert date], [insert claimant] concealed or possessed currency as a contraband article, in that it was used in a money laundering or money transmitting scheme, to wit: the currency was transported and/or delivered in violation of state law and thus used and/or attempted to be used as an instrumentality in the commission of, or in aiding or abetting in the commission of, felony violations of Chapter 896, Money Laundering, Chapter 560 Money Service Business, and Title 18 U.S.C. § 1960, Illegal Money Transmitter and is thereby subject to forfeiture pursuant to the provisions of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.
11. The totality of the circumstances being such to establish that such currency was used, or was attempted to be used as in instrumentality in the commission of, or in aiding or abetting in the commission of, a felony, to wit:
    • Operating an Unlicensed Money Service Business, by engaging in money transmitting services involving currency or payment instruments exceeding $20,000 but less than $100,000 in a 12-month period without a license required by Chapter 560, Florida Statutes, a second-degree felony. See Fla. Stat. §560.125(5) (b) (2022); and
    • Money Laundering by transporting or attempting to transport monetary instruments or funds knowing that the property involved in the financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, to wit narcotics sale or purchase, with the intent to promote the carrying on of the unlawful activity, or knowing that the transportation is designed in whole or part to conceal or disguise the nature, location, the source, the ownership, or the control of proceeds of the unlawful activity, or to avoid a transaction reporting requirement, a second degree felony. See Fla. Stat.§ 896. l 01 (3) (b) (2022) & § 896.101 (5)(a) (2022).
    • Money Laundering by conducting or attempting to conduct financial transactions exceeding $20,000 but less than $100,000 in a 12-month period knowing that the property involved in the financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, to wit narcotics sale or purchase, with the intent to promote the carrying on of the unlawful activity, or knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or part to conceal or disguise the nature, location, the source, the ownership, or the control of proceeds of the unlawful activity, or to avoid a transaction reporting requirement, a second degree felony. See Fla. Stat. §896. l 01 (5) (a) (2022).
12. Pursuant to Florida Statute 560.125 (8), in any prosecution brought pursuant to this section, the common law corpus delict rule does not apply. The defendant’s confession or admission is admissible during trial without the state having to prove the corpus delict if the court finds in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury that the defendant’s confession or admission is trustworthy.
13. The seizure of the Seized Property was authorized under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, because the Subject Property is contraband and (check all that apply):
    • ___ The owner of the property was arrested for a criminal offense that forms the basis for determining that the property is a contraband article;
    • ___ The owner of the property cannot be identified after a diligent search;
    • ___ The person in possession of the property denies ownership and the owner of the property cannot be identified by means that were available to me at the time of the seizure.
    • ___ The owner of the property is a fugitive from justice;
    • ___ The owner of the property is deceased;
    • ___ The individual who was arrested does not own the property, but the owner of the property had actual knowledge of the criminal activity;
    • ___ The owner of the property has agreed to be a confidential informant as defined in s. 914.28.
    • ___ The property is a monetary instrument.
14. The forfeiture requirement specified in Section 932.703(1) (a) has been satisfied, based on the fact that the property to be seized is $[insert amount of money seized] in United States Currency, which falls into one of the exception categories, 932.703( l) (a) (5), that does not require a criminal arrest to proceed with a civil forfeiture action.
15. Your Affiants present the following facts to establish probable cause that the Seized Property is contraband subject to seizure and forfeiture under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act:
    1. The Narcotics Interdiction Task Force, or NITF, is multi-agency task force administered by the Broward Sheriff’s Office task force and comprised of local law enforcement agencies working in conjunction with state and federal law enforcement agencies.
    2. Detectives assigned to the NITF are also sworn law enforcement officers with the United States Department of Homeland Security.
    3. The NITF is responsible for the detection, investigation, and prosecution of crimes occurring at airports, seaports, and parcel shipment facilities, including narcotics offenses, unlicensed money transmitting, and money laundering.
    4. All NITF personnel are dressed in plain clothes and working undercover, with no visible police identifications, guns, or radios being displayed.
    5. On [insert date], the Broward County Sheriff’s Office Narcotics Interdiction Task Force (BSO NITF) conducted interdiction, by random consensual encounters, at Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport.
    6. During the interdiction, NITF Detectives Roman Fayer and Natasha King observed [insert description of claimant], which was later identified as [insert name and DOB of claimant].
    7. [insert name of claimant] was in the boarding area for [insert the name of the airline] [insert flight number] with the nonstop to Los Angeles, California.
    8. [insert name of claimant] had an overwhelming odor of burnt cannabis emitting from their persons.
    9. [insert name of claimant] was wearing… and holding a carry-on bag described as….
    10. Detective  _____ spoke with [insert name of claimant].
    11. Detective Fayer approached [insert name of claimant] and introduced himself while presenting [insert name of claimant] with his badge and police identification. Once the introduction was complete, Detective Fayer placed his badge and police identification back into his pocket.
    12. Detective Fayer advised [insert name of claimant] that BSO NITF conducts airport interdiction by random consensual encounters with passengers to identify any criminal activity occurring at the airport, and to make sure no one is traveling with any prohibited items. [insert name of claimant] acknowledged Detective Fayer and said, “Yes Sir, sure, I will talk to you, no problem.”
    13. Detective Fayer asked [insert name of claimant] if he packed his own bag, and [insert name of claimant] said, “Yes.” Detective Fayer asked [insert name of claimant] if he had any prohibited items that are not allowed on the aircraft, and [insert name of claimant] said, “No, I don’t.”
    14. Detective Fayer asked [insert name of claimant] for consent to search the carry-on bag that [insert name of claimant] was in possession of and his person, [insert name of claimant], “Sure, you can search it. I have nothing on me.”
    15. Consent to Search was in the presence of and witnessed by Sergeant Reginald Cleophat.
    16. Sergeant Cleophat conducted a hand search of the duffle bag. Detective Fayer asked [insert name of claimant] if he was a Medical Marijuana Patient (MMP) and, after a moment of hesitation, [insert name of claimant] said, “No, Sir, I am not.”
    17. Detective Fayer observed a large bulge protruding through his sweatshirt. [insert name of claimant] reached into his pocket and removed a large bundle of US Currency (USC.)
    18. Detective Fayer asked [insert name of claimant] how much money he was traveling with, and [insert name of claimant] said, “I only have $_____.”
    19. The USC was separated into five bundles which were secured by rubber bands and secured into one large bundle.
    20. At that time, Sergeant Cleophat located an additional $____ which was also secured by small rubber bands.
    21. The USC in the bag which was concealed under the clothing. [Attached as Exhibit “A”-“C”].
    22. Detective Fayer asked [insert name of claimant] if he had any additional USC, and after a moment of hesitation [insert name of claimant] said, “No, you found it all.”
    23. An additional $___ was located in [insert name of claimant] wallet. The USC was turned over to Sergeant Cleophat for the count.
    24. These rubber-banded bundles are known to Detective Fayer as “Quick-count bundles” or “Quick Stacks” which are widely used by street level drug organizations to separate and quickly distribute currency during narcotic transactions.
    25. The USC lack of any financial documentation, proof of withdrawal or bank money wrappers. The USC also had a heavy odor of fresh cut cannabis.
    26. The USC was consistent with narcotics proceeds. A count revealed that [insert name of claimant] had $_____.
    27. Detective Fayer asked [insert name of claimant]  why $____ was separated from the other USC, but [insert name of claimant] did not answer.
    28. Detective Fayer also asked [insert name of claimant] why he was not truthful about the true amount he was transporting, but [insert name of claimant] did not respond.
    29. Detective Fayer asked to see [insert name of claimant] identification and boarding pass. Detective Fayer was able to verify that [insert name of claimant] was flying on flight #…. with nonstop service to Los Angeles, California LAX. Once the information was verified, Detective Fayer immediately handed [insert name of claimant] his FL DL and his boarding pass.
    30. Detective Fayer asked [name of claimant] where he was traveling, and [insert name of claimant] told Detective Fayer that he was flying to Los Angeles.
    31. Detective Fayer asked [insert name of claimant] if he was traveling with anyone else, and [insert name of claimant] stated ….
    32. Detective Fayer asked [insert name of claimant] what his purpose was to travel to CA and [insert name of claimant] said….
    33. During the conversation, [insert name of claimant] broke eye contact, licked his lips and kept looking towards…..
    34. Detective Fayer asked [insert name of claimant] when he bought his ticket, [name of claimant] said, ….
    35. Detective Fayer asked [name of claimant] when he was coming back, and without any hesitation [name of claimant] said ….Investigation revealed that the flight was purchased on ______ with the return flight _____.
    36. Detective Fayer asked [name of claimant] if he was the one who purchased his flight since it appeared that [name of claimant] did not know the date the flight was purchased, the form of payment and the amount paid. [name of claimant] looked away and then said, “I think my friend paid for my flight.”
    37. Further investigation revealed that — paid for —- ‘s travels utilizing his Card XXXX and paid $____.
    38. [name of claimant] was flying back within __ hours of their departure.
    39. Detective Fayer asked [name of claimant]for his lodging information and once again, without hesitation, [name of claimant] said:…. [name of claimant] has very limited clothes which is consistent with a quick turnaround trip.
    40. Detective Fayer asked [name of claimant] where he was employed and [name of claimant] said,….
    41. Detective Fayer asked [name of claimant] the origin of the USC he was transporting and after a long pause [name of claimant] said….
    42. Detective Fayer asked [name of claimant] how he gets paid from his job, and after a short pause, [name of claimant] said….Detective Fayer asked [name of claimant] if he had a bank account and [name of claimant] said, ….
    43. [claimant] explained to Detective Fayer that when he gets a check, he cashes it and that’s why there is no money in the bank.
    44. Detective Fayer asked [claimant] how much he reported to Internal Revenue Services (IRS) as an income for the previous year, and after a moment of hesitation [claimant] said: ….
    45. Detective Fayer requested narcotics K-9 Detective Kelly to conduct a narcotics K-9 sniff on the USC, which was located in the duffle bag, sweatshirt pocket and the wallet.
    46. Detective Taylor Kelly conducted a narcotics sniff on the USC with her Narcotics K-9.
    47. Detective Taylor Kelly is a certified Deputy Sheriff with the Broward Sheriff’s Office and has served in such capacity since 2019. Detective Kelly is currently assigned as a detective with the Broward Sheriff’s Office City of Tamarac Crime Suppression Team, whose responsibilities includes but is not limited to, street level narcotics enforcement. Detective Kelly previously served as an Officer with the Hallandale Beach Police Department for four years. She was assigned to the Street Crimes Unit for two of those years, where the primary focus was on street level narcotics enforcement. Detective Kelly is experienced in the internal workings of street level and large-scale narcotics operations through various types of investigations and the executions of search warrants. She has participated in many narcotics investigations and interviews of defendants, informants, and witnesses who had personal knowledge regarding all types of narcotics activity. Detective Kelly is experienced with the operations of narcotics organizations including the manufacturing, transportation, distribution and storage of narcotics.
    48. Detective Kelly has been working as a narcotics detection canine since [date]. She has attended a ten-week detector dog school. Detective Kelly attends detector dog training weekly with other Broward County narcotics detector canines. The training includes introducing blank (negative) areas and exposure to common masking odors. The team was evaluated and certified by the United States Police Canine Association (USPCA) on January 6th, 2022, and March 24, 2023.
    49. Canine “Farrah” has been employed with the Broward County Sheriff’s Office since October 11th, 2021. Canine Farrah and Detective Kelly completed a ten-week Narcotic Detector School with the Broward Sheriff’s office. Canine Farrah was certified on January 6th, 2022, by the United States Police Canine Association (USPCA). Canine Farrah is trained to detect cocaine, marijuana, heroin, hashish, methamphetamine, and their derivatives. During weekly training Canine Farrah has been consistent by alerting to the illegal drugs that she is trained to detect and not to the masking agents/distracters that are associated with the packaging of these drugs. Canine Farrah is continuously trained with various amounts (small to large) of the odors of each illegal drug that she is trained to detect. Various training methods are utilized in such a manner in order to maintain the highest level of proficiency of detection for Canine Farrah and to ensure that she alerts to the odors of the illegal drugs that she is trained to detect without being influenced by other factors. Service records (Training logs and Canine Usage Logs) are maintained throughout the law enforcement service lifetime of Canine Farrah and are currently up to date. Since graduating detection canine school, Canine Farrah has been proven reliable in several narcotics investigations and has detected marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine during live searches/training exercises. Canine Farrah is proofed off of currency during weekly maintenance canine training.
    50. A subsequent narcotics K9 dog sniff by K9 “Farrah” yielded a positive alert for the presence of an odor of narcotics on the USC and luggage.
    51. The USC was sniffed separately from the luggage. Detective Fayer asked [claimant] why narcotics K-9 alerted to the USC that he was transporting, and [claimant] did not respond.
    52. Detective Fayer told [claimant], the US Currency he was traveling with would be seized.
    53. Detective Fayer read the BSO Notice of Seizure to [claimant] and provided [claimant] with a copy. [claimant] provided a wrong address on the Notice of Seizure and requested to change the address.
    54. Furthermore, [claimant] decided to video tape the issuance of the BSO Notice of Seizure.
    55. Detective Fayer issued [claimant] a new Notice of Seizure with an address of ……
    56. The USC which was seized from [claimant] was placed into a self-sealing bag.
    57. The USC was sealed and transported to BSO Evidence Unit where a BSO Evidence technician conducted an official count. The total amount seized from [claimant] was $____. Detective Fayer spoke with Detective King who advised that $_____ would also be seized from ___ as suspect narcotics proceeds.
    58. ____ did not travel. This case was documented under BSO Case #____.
    59. While Detective Fayer spoke with [claimant], Detective Natasha King spoke with ….
    60. Detective King explained to [claimant] that NITF randomly speaks with passengers about their luggage and travels to possibly identify any illegal activity occurring at the airport and to make sure that no one is traveling with any prohibited items and asked [claimant] if she could speak with him, and [claimant] replied, “Yeah sure.”
    61. Detective King asked [claimant] for his identification and boarding pass to verify his travels. [claimant] provided Detective King with his Florida Driver’s License and boarding pass which he held a confirmed reservation on flight #___, seat ____.
    62. Once [claimant] identity was verified, Detective King immediately returned his identification to him.
    63. Detective King asked [claimant] if he packed his bag himself, and [claimant] replied, “Yes.” Detective King asked [claimant] if anyone gave him any prohibited items to take on the airplane, and [claimant] replied, “No.”
    64. Detective King asked [claimant] if all the contents in his bags belonged to him, and [claimant] replied, “Yeah.”
    65. Detective King could smell an overwhelming odor of burnt cannabis emanating from [claimant] person/belongings prompting her to ask [claimant] if he was traveling with any contraband in his bags or on his person, and [claimant] replied, “No I have nothing on me.”
    66. Detective King asked [claimant] if he was traveling with any firearms, and [claimant] replied, “No absolutely no.”
    67. Detective King asked [claimant] for verbal consent to search his bags for contraband, and [claimant] replied, “Yeah sure, I don’t have anything on me though.” Detective Kelly witnessed the consent and assisted with the search of his backpack.
    68. Detective Kelly relayed to Detective King that during the search of the backpack she found a large bundle of USC that was held together by a single rubber band concealed in the pocket of a pair of pants. [Attached as Exhibit “D”-“F”].
    69. The contents of the backpack had a strong odor of burnt cannabis as well. Detective King asked [claimant] how much USC he was traveling with and [claimant] replied, “I have $10,000. Looking at the bundle of USC that Kelly found, Detective King knew it did not total $___ from her visual estimate.
    70. Detective King asked [claimant] where the rest of the USC was, he told her about, and [claimant] replied, “It’s in my pocket.”
    71. Detective King asked [claimant] if she could verify the total amount of USC he was traveling with and [claimant] complied as he removed the USC from his front left pocket.
    72. All the USC [claimant] was traveling with had a strong odor of cannabis emanating from the bills. The USC was in denominations of $100, $50, $20, $10, $5, and $1 bills indicative of street level drug sales.
    73. The USC lacked any financial institution identifiers, stamps or signatures from a bank teller. [claimant] also advised he rubber banded the USC.
    74. Detective Taylor Kelly responded back to the scene and conducted a narcotics sniff on the USC. A subsequent narcotics K9 dog sniff by K9 “Farrah” yielded a positive alert for the presence of an odor of narcotics on the USC and all the backpacks.
    75. The USC was separated from [claimant] backpack at the time of the sniff.
    76. This positive alert is an indication that the currency was recently in close proximity to a significant amount of illegal narcotics.
    77. Detective King asked [claimant] if he could explain why a narcotics K9 would alert to his backpack and USC, and [claimant] replied….
    78. Detective King asked [claimant] if any of the USC he was traveling with came from his bank account or withdrawn from any bank account, and [claimant]replied, “No.” [claimant] continued to explain he obtained the USC from …
    79. Detective King asked [claimant] if SA Gavalier could search his phone, and [claimant] replied, “No I will hold the phone.”
    80. Detective King asked [claimant] if he had a business and [claimant] replied….Sunbiz check shows the company was reactivated on ….
    81. Detective King asked [claimant] how much income he generates annually from his business, and [claimant] replied….
    82. Detective King asked [claimant] if he could show her any documentation such as bank balances or any other transaction that reflected the large sum of USC, and [claimant] stated…
    83. Detective King asked [claimant] how often he travels to California, and [claimant] stated….
    84. Detective King asked [claimant]when he purchased his ticket to LAX, and [claimant] replied….
    85. Detective King asked if any of the USC [claimant] was traveling with belonged to him and [claimant] replied…
    86. Detective King explained that he had a lot planned for such a short trip, and [claimant] stated….
    87. Sgt. Reginald Cleophat and Detective Jessie Johnson verified that [claimant]was traveling with a total of $____.
    88. Detective King also noticed that [claimant] was traveling with two cell phones. Based on Detective King’s training and experience with narcotics traffickers and money launderers, they utilize burner phones to protect their identity when conducting business. These phones are untraceable and is used to contact suppliers and customers. Their primary phone is used for personal use only to contact family and friends. Detective King asked [claimant] why he needed two cell phones, and [claimant] replied,….
    89. Detective King explained to [claimant] his currency is being seized by Broward County Sheriffs Office since Detective King believed that the currency, he is traveling with is or was going to be used for further narcotics transactions. [claimant] signed a BSO Notice of Seizure and was issued a BSO Property Receipt.
    90. [claimant] chose not to travel and left the airport without incident. This supports the premise that this trip was solely designed to transport the currency which was seized.
    91. The USC was placed into a self-sealing bag. The USC was transported to BSO Evidence where the USC was verified at $____. The USC was turned over to BSO Evidence Unit.
    92. Based upon the training and experience of the NITF Detectives, it is common for persons with large amounts of currency in hand to travel out of the Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport to known source states involved in drug distribution-specifically California. Once the traveler makes it to the source state, they purchase large quantities of narcotics using the bulk currency in hand and ship it back to the state of Florida via a parcel facility such as FedEx, UPS, U.S. Postal Service or even travel with the narcotics in their luggage. This type of activity is consistent with narcotics trafficking. Transportation of currency in this pretext is illegal and violates Florida’s Anti-Money Laundering Statutes in Chapter 896, Florida Statutes.
    93. Air transportation of currency earned from narcotics sales is more difficult to trace by law enforcement and leaves less of a “paper trail” than conventional methods of transmitting currency by personal check, money order, cashier’s check, and other bank wiring services-all of which are more secure, less burdensome, and more cost effective than purchasing a plane ticket and traveling several hours across the country.
    94. Wiring or obtaining a cashier’s check at a financial institution for $____  would have generated a “currency transaction report” (CTR) which requires identification and provides notification to the Federal government of the transaction.
    95. A CTR is a report that U.S. financial institutions are required to file with Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (Fin CEN) for each deposit, withdrawal, exchange of currency, or other payment or transfer, by, through, or to the financial institution which involves a transaction in currency of more than $10,000. Financial Institutions, including money service businesses, must complete a Currency Transaction Report, or CTR, for all currency transactions in excess of $10,000.00. See 31 U.S.C. §5313; 31 C.F.R. § 103.22.
    96. Notifying local or Federal law enforcement authorities of a substantial currency exchange is something those who deal in narcotics or illicit proceeds want to avoid at all costs.
    97. Neither [claimant] have a license to transport currency as a money service business in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1960 and Florida Statute §560.125.

Conclusion

Based on the totality of the circumstances, the U.S. currency in the amount of $ ______ was seized under Broward Sheriff’s Office Case No.: ____  as there is probable cause to believe it was contraband under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act by the totality of the circumstances demonstrating a nexus between the currency and a Chapter 893 narcotics violation, in that the currency had been, was being, or was intended to be used in violation of Chapter 893, either as proceeds from the sale of a controlled substance, or as funds to be used in the purchase of same or attempted to be used as an instrumentality in the commission of, or in aiding or abetting in the commission of a felony unlicensed money transmitter and money laundering.

This article was last updated on Thursday, September 12, 2024.