On June 17, 2025, the Honorable J. Layne Smith, Circuit Judge in Wakulla County, FL, ordered the sheriff’s office to return the seized cryptocurrency, including over $500,000 worth of Bitcoin (BTC), to our client. Shortly after the cryptocurrency was seized and our law firm was retained, we filed a demand for an adversarial preliminary hearing (APH) on the Florida Attorney General’s Office as required by the notice of seizure. An all-day adversarial preliminary hearing was held on June 11, 2025. After the hearing, the Court entered an order finding:

At the beginning of the adversarial preliminary hearing, Ms. Sammis handed the Court a copy of the claimant’s motion to dismiss and memorandum of law that she had filed that morning. The Court reviewed the motion prior to the start of the evidentiary hearing. The Court took the motion under advisement and proceeded with an all-day adversarial preliminary hearing.

[The Court found that because the cryptocurrency account was never located in Wakulla County, FL,] per Florida Statute Section 30.15(1), the sheriff’s office lacked the authority to seize property in another county….Wherefore, the Court dismisses this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court orders the petitioner to return the seized account to the claimant.

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.

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 20, 2019, $181,500.00 in U.S. Currency was seized at the Tampa International Airport before a domestic flight. A federal agent wrote a receipt to our client that said: “MONEY CONTAINED IN 2 BAGS. ESTIMATED VALUE IS 181,500.00.” However, only $159,950 was deposited into the bank after the seizure.

After not reaching a resolution with the Assistant United States Attorney for the timely return of the funds, we file a lawsuit against CBP in federal court on January 31, 2020. We agree to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit against CBP after it returned $159,950 and agreed to return an additional amount for interest in a second check.

In October 2020, DEA seized more than $78,000 from a traveler at the JFK International Airport. After we were retained, we took steps to preserve any surveillance video of the initial detention. After filing a verified claim for court action, a Senior Law Clerk with the Forfeiture Support Associates, LLC, contacted us to find out whether we would be amenable to a CAFRA extension to see if the case could be resolved prior to the filing of a complaint. We declined this invitation but provided information showing problems with how the initial detention occurred. We were then contacted by an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) with the Asset Forfeiture Unit in the Eastern District of New York. Ultimately, the AUSA failed to file the complaint within the 90 day deadline, and the funds were returned shortly thereafter.