Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Agresta v. City of Maitland

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 20, 2015No. 5D13-3577Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBerger, J.

I agree with the majority that in some instances the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act (“FCFA”)5 serves a punitive purpose.6 I also agree that when forfeitures under the FCFA are not solely remedial, they are subject to an excessive fines analysis. See Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 621-22, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993) (holding that in rem civil forfeitures that serve in part as punishment are subject to an Eighth Amendment excessive fines analysis). However, I disagree with the majority view that the forfeiture in this case is excessive.7 Accordingly, after further review,…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Austin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. United States v. BajakajianSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  3. United States v. UrserySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  4. United States v. BrowneCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2007
  5. Various Items of Personal Property v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API