Criminal Defense Case Results

On July 23, 2026, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Agents working on behalf of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in Tampa, FL, seized our client’s 2023 Hellcat Challenger Jailbreak.

On August 6, 2026, our client received a “NOTICE OF SEIZURE AND INFORMATION TO CLAIMANTS NON-CAFRA FORM.” The non-CAFRA notice of seizure set the appraised domestic value of the vehicle was $62,500.00. The letter claimed the vehicle was seized and subject to forfeiture for violations of the following provisions:

• 19 USC 1595a(d), 22 USC 401, 19 CFR 192.2 – Export of Self-Propelled Vehicles and/or Vehicle Parts Without Presenting Vehicle and Documentation Required by Regulations; and
• 19 USC 1595a(D), 22 USC 401, 15 CFR 30.71(b)(4), 15 CFR 30.6(a)(17) – Incorrect Shipment Vehicle in Electronic Export Information (EEI).

Typically, the attorneys at Sammis Law Firm recommend NOT FILING any of the following:

• a petition;
• an offer in compromise; or
• an offer to substitute release of the seized property on payment of the appraised value.

Each of those options allow CBP to decide what happens to the property. Instead, we recommend filing a verified claim to demand early judicial intervention through court action when the client:

• wants the vehicle back
• did not knowingly commit the alleged violation; or
• has a viable defense.

In this case, Attorney Ricardo De Lucca helped the client file a verified claim to demand early judicial intervention through court action, complete a modified election of rights form, post a $5,000 cash bond, and provide information to CBP about why no violation occurred. Filing the verified claim and posting the $5,000 bond forced CBP to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office who “declined” to file any complaint for forfeiture in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.

On September 9, 2026, Tracy L. Baer, the paralegal for CBP’s Acting Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures Officer, Amelia Castelli, send us a letter that provided: “After review of the matter, the Government has decided to release the property to you.” The letter also provided information on how to make arraignments to pick up the vehicle.

On March 7, 2025, the Tampa Police Department (TPD) seized a vehicle belonging to the claimant. The claimant never received a Notice of Seizure but Sammis Law Firm filed a demand for Adversarial Preliminary Hearing (APH) on behalf of the claimant with TPD. Twelve days after the seizure, TPD released the vehicle to the claimant.

On March 3, 2025, the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) seized a vehicle from the claimant alleging the claimant was in violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, Sections 932.701-704, Florida Statutes. Sammis Law Firm filed a demand for Adversarial Preliminary Hearing (APH) on behalf of the claimant with PCSO. A hearing was scheduled; however, PCSO agreed to return the vehicle to the claimant 24 days after the seizure but before the scheduled hearing which was cancelled.

Our client’s employee was arrested while operating a work vehicle, which was subsequently seized by the Sheriff’s Office under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. We demanded an adversarial preliminary hearing to determine if probable cause existed for the seizure and provided proof that the vehicle was owned by our client. Following receipt of our demand and evidence, the Sheriff’s Office decided to release the vehicle, returning it to our client.

On September 27, 2024, the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) seized a vehicle belonging to claimant. Claimant never received a Notice of Seizure but was served with a Verified Complaint for Probable Cause and for Final Order of Forfeiture where FHP alleged that the forfeiture was pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act (“the Act”), Sections 932.701-7062, Florida Statutes. On behalf of the claimant, Sammis Law Firm filed a demand for Adversarial Preliminary Hearing (APH) and an Answer to the Complaint. Shortly thereafter, FHP filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and returned the vehicle to the claimant.

On April 10, 2024, we received a letter from Robert M. Del Toro, Fines, Penalties and Forfeiture Officer, signed by Rebecca Gabbard, CBP Paralegal Specialist, explaining that our client’s 1992 Land Rover Defender 110, imported from South Africa, seized on 9/20/23, was being returned. The letter explained that the “Government has decided to release the property to you and return the cost bond.” The letter gave further instructions on picking up the vehicle from a government-contracted facility where it was being held. Before receiving this letter, we filed a non-CAFRA claim for court action, posted the cash bond, and negotiated with the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) while explaining why CBP’s allegations were wrong. Ultimately, the AUSA refused to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court, forcing CBP to release the vehicle immediately.

Our client’s husband was arrested, and her vehicle was subject to seizure by the Sheriff’s Office under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. We promptly filed a demand for an adversarial preliminary hearing to challenge the seizure and assess if probable cause existed to justify it. Upon receiving our demand, the Sheriff’s Office chose to release the vehicle, allowing our client to regain possession without further legal proceedings.

On August 5, 2024, the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) seized $1,420.00 and a vehicle alleging that both were used in violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. Sammis Law Firm requested an Adversarial Preliminary Hearing (APH). HCSO agreed to return the money but filed a Verified Complaint for Probable Cause and for Final Order of Forfeiture. Within 21 days, Sammis Law Firm filed and Answer to Verified Complaint. After presenting information about problems with the seizure, HCSO filed a Voluntary Dismissal 15 months later and released the property.

On September 8, 2023, a 2014 Mercedes-Benz G550 was seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) during a routine traffic stop, alleging a violation of 21 USC 881, along with violations of other federal laws, including 19 U.S.C. §§ 1602-1619, 18 U.S.C. § 983 and 28 C.F.R. Parts 8 and 9. On behalf of the client, Sammis Law Firm filed a claim for court action with DEA. We presented arguments regarding an illegal stop, detention, and arrest, including the fact that the drug dog did not properly alert. After negotiations with the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA), the AUSA declined to file a complaint even though criminal charges were pending, and the DEA was forced to release the vehicle back to our client’s mother.

On November 2, 2023, the Honorable Michael Robinson, a Circuit Court Judge in Broward County, signed an order finding “no probable cause” for the seizure and forfeiture of a 2020 Dodge Challenger after an adversarial hearing held on October 30, 2023. The order required the agency to return the vehicle to our client within five (5) business days. Additionally, the order found that since there was no probable cause, the Hollywood Police Department, pursuant to Section 932.704(10), was ordered to reimburse the client for the reasonable attorney fees paid to our firm.