Background
The City of St. Petersburg Police Department seized $19,898 from Garrett Jamal Dennis under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. According to the sworn affidavit accompanying the department’s probable-cause application, an officer saw Dennis visit two locations and interact with several people, including a location the officer described as known for open drug transactions. The officer then stopped Dennis after he failed to stop at a stop sign and detected a strong odor of marijuana from his vehicle.
Officers found approximately thirty-one grams of marijuana, additional baggies of marijuana in Dennis’s jacket, three loose one-dollar bills, and a bag containing THC, a loaded handgun with a chambered round, and multiple loaded magazines. Dennis had another $19,895 in his jeans pocket. He said that he planned to buy a food truck with the money but, according to the affidavit, could not give a straight answer about the vehicle or the type of food he would sell. The circuit court reviewed the application ex parte and found no probable cause for the seizure.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District reversed. It held that the department’s application and sworn affidavit were sufficient at the initial seizure stage to establish probable cause that the currency was used, attempted to be used, or intended to be used in an illegal drug transaction. The governing standard requires less than a prima facie case but more than mere suspicion, and circumstantial facts must be considered collectively rather than in isolation.
Viewed in the aggregate and without contrary evidence, Dennis’s conduct, the drugs and firearm-related evidence, his possession of nearly $20,000 in cash, and his asserted but inadequately explained plan for the money created a sufficient probability to support a reasonable belief that the cash was connected to unlawful drug activity. The court remanded for an adversarial preliminary hearing under section 932.703(3)(c), Florida Statutes. It emphasized that its limited review of the application did not bind the circuit court’s future probable-cause determination after considering testimony and other evidence at that hearing.
Key Takeaways
- At the seizure stage of a Florida forfeiture proceeding, probable cause requires more than suspicion but less than a prima facie case.
- A seizing agency may establish probable cause through the combined force of circumstantial facts even when no individual fact would be sufficient by itself.
- The appellate ruling permits the seizure proceeding to continue but does not finally establish probable cause or determine that the currency is forfeitable.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the comparatively low, totality-of-the-circumstances threshold governing the initial seizure stage under Florida’s Contraband Forfeiture Act. Trial courts evaluating an agency’s verified application must assess the facts collectively rather than demand direct proof that currency was involved in a specific drug transaction.
The ruling also preserves the distinction between the initial ex parte review and the adversarial preliminary hearing. Dennis may present contrary evidence at the hearing, and the circuit court must make a fresh determination based on the expanded record.