Case Name: Andrew FLETCHER, Clara Mills and Donna Collington, Appellants. v. METRO DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST FUND, and Asheville Buncombe Metropolitan Enforcement Group, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-01-14
Citations: 593 So. 2d 266
Docket Number: No. 90-2271
Parties: Andrew FLETCHER, Clara Mills and Donna Collington, Appellants. v. METRO DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST FUND, and Asheville Buncombe Metropolitan Enforcement Group, Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and GERSTEN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 593
Pages: 266–270

Head Matter:
Andrew FLETCHER, Clara Mills and Donna Collington, Appellants. v. METRO DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST FUND, and Asheville Buncombe Metropolitan Enforcement Group, Appellees.
No. 90-2271.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan. 14, 1992.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1992.
Richard Hersch, Miami, for appellants.
Arthur F. Nehrbass, Miami, for appel-lees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and GERSTEN, JJ.

Opinion:
BARKDULL, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment. A reasonable inference from the facts discloses the following:
On June 14, 1989, claimant/appellant Donna Collington arrived at Miami International Airport carrying $80,000 cash in a shoe box within her carry-on-bag. Metro Dade police officers were alerted by DEA in Atlanta of appellant's arrival in Miami and met her at the airport.
After the appellant presented the officers with valid identification and her airline ticket, she consented to a police search of her carry-on-bag. During the search the officers found $80,000 in cash separated into $5,000 and $10,000 stacks by rubber bands. The appellant was asked whether she was travelling for business or pleasure to which she originally replied for pleasure. When the appellant was asked whether the money belonged to her; she replied that it did. Later, the appellant told the officers the money belonged to C & A Recreation, owned by her boyfriend, claimant/appellant, Andrew Fletcher. She further stated she was travelling on business.
After finding the currency, the officers seized it and removed it to another area for a dog sniff. A drug detection dog sniff alerted the officers to traces of narcotics found on the currency. The currency was thereupon seized for forfeiture.
At the forfeiture hearing, the appellants testified the money was to be used solely for legal purposes, namely the purchase of video games for C & A Recreation, a social club in North Carolina. Claimant/appellant, Clara Mills, appellant, Andrew Fletcher's mother, testified she had given her son $25,000 of the $80,000 for the purchase of lighting equipment to be used in her nightclub and disco, also located in North Carolina.
Fletcher's money came from a business that was involved in narcotics transactions, as evidenced by the fact that Fletcher's business premises in North Carolina was searched prior to the seizure of the money herein, that search, with a warrant, produced 16 individual bags of marijuana and 79.5 grams of cocaine, and Fletcher's money can easily be connected to a criminal activity. On the other hand, there is nothing in the record to show that Mill's money came from anywhere other than a legitimate enterprise. There is nothing to connect her money to any criminal activity.
Subsequent to oral argument in this cause, the Supreme Court of Florida rendered its decision in Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957 (Fla.1991), 16 F.L.W. S497, holding that before a forfeiture could take place, the evidence must be "clear and convincing", that the property (which in this case was cash of $80,000.00) was being used in furtherance of a criminal enterprise.
We thereupon asked the parties to submit additional briefs as to the impact of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court of Florida in Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, supra, on these proceedings, recognizing that appeals are decided on the law as it existed at the time of the rendition of an appellate decision, and not as the law may have existed at the time of the trial court proceeding. Lowe v. Price, 437 So.2d 142 (Fla.1983); Evans Packing Company v. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 550 So.2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); City of Pompano Beach v. Haggerty, 530 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Seaboard System Railroad, Inc. v. Clemente, 467 So.2d 348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Following review of the supplemental briefs and record, we hold that the $25,-000.00 forfeited, which was advanced by Mrs. Mills, was not sufficiently shown by "clear and convincing" evidence to have been intended to be used in furtherance of a criminal enterprise, upon the authority of Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, supra. Turning to the remaining $55,000.00, we find that the evidence did meet the test as being "clear and convincing", that it was to be used in furtherance of a criminal enterprise. Fitzgerald v. Metro Dade County, 508 So.2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Lobo v. Metro Dade Police Department, 505 So.2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); United States v. $41,305.00 in Currency and Travelers Checks, 802 F.2d 1339 (11th Cir.1986). We do not find Lobo v. Metro Dade Police Department, supra to require a different result as to the $55,-000.00. In the instant case there was ho adequate explanation of the source of the funds, their intended purpose, etc. Whereas in Lobo, supra, there was an adequate explanation of the source of the funds, and its intended use, without any evasion on the part of the one in possession of the cash. Which is not the situation in the instant case.
Therefore, so much of the final judgment under review that forfeited $25,000.00 belonging to Mills is reversed. The remainder of the final judgment is affirmed and this matter is returned to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and decision.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
SCHWARTZ, C.J., concurs.
. Drug Enforcement Agency.