Gomez v. Village of Pinecrest

I respectfully dissent. I believe the First District Court of Appeal correctly interpreted section 932.703(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), to require a preliminary showing that the owner knew or should have known, after reasonable inquiry, that the property was employed or likely to be employed in criminal activity for it to be seized. The Fifth District Court of Appeal recently joined the First District Court of Appeal in this interpretation of the statute. See Brevard County Sheriff's Office v. Baggett, 4 So.3d 67 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). However, I do not need to reach the merits of this…