Opinion ID: 1767741
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Initial restraint on property

Text: The only action expressly authorized by the Act to initiate forfeiture is the actual seizure of the subject property, see section 932.704(1), an extreme measure because seizure effectively ousts an individual from all rights concerning the property, [11] producing particularly harsh consequences where a residence is at issue. The Act does not speak to any lesser forms of property restraint, such as a notice of lis pendens (which was used in the instant case), a restraining order, or a bond requirement. The Act does not distinguish between seizing interests in personal property from seizing interests in real property, which is substantially different in character and may be adequately restrained by less restrictive means. The Act does not provide for any preseizure notice to the property owner or lienholder with an opportunity to be heard; nor does it provide any procedures for the seizure itself, including the standard or burden of proof. Some of these constitutional concerns have been addressed by recent federal due process decisions that we find highly persuasive and reflective of the principles embodied in the Florida Constitution. [12] Two opinions are particularly noteworthy: United States v. Premises & Real Property at 4492 South Livonia Rd., 889 F.2d 1258 (2d Cir.1989) ( Livonia Road ); and United States v. Monsanto, 924 F.2d 1186 (2d Cir.1991) (en banc). In Livonia Road, the government filed a notice of lis pendens and got an ex parte seizure warrant one day after it filed a forfeiture complaint against a parcel of real property, which contained a person's home. In reviewing the propriety of the seizure, the court held that the government may not seize real property containing a person's home in a forfeiture through an ex parte seizure warrant without first giving the home owner notice or an opportunity to be heard in an adversarial proceeding. Accord United States v. Leasehold Interest in Property Located at 850 S. Maple, 743 F. Supp. 505 (E.D.Mich. 1990); United States v. Parcel I, Beginning at a Stake, 731 F. Supp. 1348 (S.D.Ill. 1990). [13] The court focused on two substantial constitutional principles: (1) the general principle that due process forbids the government from taking any property without notice and an opportunity to be heard unless the facts pose an extraordinary situation to justify postponing notice and hearing until after the seizure, Livonia Road, 889 F.2d at 1263-64 (citing Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 2000, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972)); and (2) the special significance of a person's residential property, because an individual's expectation of privacy and freedom from governmental intrusion in the home merits special constitutional protection. Id. at 1264. Balancing the interests under the principles of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), the court put great weight on an individual's property interests; found that preseizure notice and an opportunity to be heard would minimize the risk of erroneous deprivation at little or no additional burden to the state; and determined that exigent circumstances are unlikely where real property is at issue because it cannot be readily moved or dissipated. Any exigency that might be posed by the threat of an encumbrance on, or transfer of, the property may be met by less restrictive means than seizure, for example, by the filing of a lis pendens, as was done in this case, along with a restraining order or bond requirement. Livonia Road, 889 F.2d at 1265; cf. Connecticut v. Doehr, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2105, 115 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991) (prejudgment attachment of real property without prior notice or hearing, without a showing of extraordinary circumstances, and without a requirement that the person seeking the attachment post a bond, violates due process). Much of the same rationale was applied in Monsanto, where a federal grand jury indictment charged Monsanto with various offenses and alleged that his home, an apartment, and $35,000 in cash were subject to forfeiture. Upon indictment and at the government's request, the court issued an ex parte restraining order prohibiting Monsanto from directly or indirectly transferring or encumbering the home or apartment. The circuit court approved the use of a restraining order, which, rather than ousting the owner of all rights with regard to the property, merely `operates to remove the assets from the control of the defendant on the claim of the government that it has a higher right to those assets.' Monsanto, 924 F.2d at 1192 (quoting United States v. Moya-Gomez, 860 F.2d 706, 725 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 908, 109 S.Ct. 3221, 106 L.Ed.2d 571 (1989)). A restraining order, like the notice of lis pendens in Livonia Road, preserves the availability of potentially forfeitable assets. Thus, the circuit court held that because probable cause had already been established through a grand jury indictment, the court was free to issue an ex parte restraining order on real property before the owners and lienholders had been given notice and an opportunity to be heard. However, the court said the right to have notice and a hearing weigh heavily when property interests are being taken under these circumstances. Therefore, it held that after a trial court issues an ex parte restraining order  which is even less restrictive than a seizure  the court must provide notice and an adversarial hearing to reexamine probable cause to determine de novo whether or not the government is entitled to continue its restraint on the property throughout the pretrial process. Turning to the Act under review, the state's argument as to the initial restraint on property focused on the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution. The state conceded at oral argument that the fourth amendment applies to the seizure of property in forfeiture actions, and argued that fourth amendment protections adequately protect property owners. We fully agree that the fourth amendment applies when there has been a seizure; [14] however, the state's reliance on fourth amendment principles misses the point. The issue of initial property restraint focuses on (1) whether due process requires the state to use means less restrictive than seizure, if possible, to protect the respective interests and safeguard the constitutional rights being impinged; and (2) whether seizure or other forms of property restraint are constitutionally permissible in the absence of notice and an opportunity to be heard in an adversarial forum. Even temporary or partial impairments to property rights are sufficient to merit due process protection. Connecticut v. Doehr, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2105, 115 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991). As the Monsanto and Livonia Road opinions expressed, seizure may be a harsh, extreme, and unnecessary way to restrain an owner or lienholder from using or disposing of potentially forfeitable property when there are less restrictive means available, especially when no notice or hearing is provided. In evaluating the due process concerns, [15] it is clear that individuals have compelling interests to be heard at the initiation of forfeiture proceedings against their property rights to assure that there is probable cause to believe that a person committed a crime using that property to justify a property restraint. Property rights are among the basic substantive rights expressly protected by the Florida Constitution. Art. I, § 2, Fla. Const.; see Shriners Hosps. for Crippled Children v. Zrillic, 563 So.2d 64, 68 (Fla. 1990) (article I, section 2 protects all incidents of property ownership from infringement by the state unless regulations are reasonably necessary to secure the health, safety, good order, and general welfare of the public). Those property rights are particularly sensitive where residential property is at stake, because individuals unquestionably have constitutional privacy rights to be free from governmental intrusion in the sanctity of their homes and the maintenance of their personal lives. Art. I, §§ 2, 12, 23, Fla. Const. Additionally, Floridians have substantive rights to be free from excessive punishments under article I, section 17 of the Florida Constitution, and to have meaningful access to the courts pursuant to article I, section 21 of the Florida Constitution. All of these substantive rights necessarily must be protected by procedural safeguards including notice and an opportunity to be heard. Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const.; see Hadley v. Department of Admin., 411 So.2d 184 (Fla. 1982); State ex rel. Gore v. Chillingworth, 126 Fla. 645, 657-58, 171 So. 649, 654 (1936). Just as we recognize the significance of the interests of property owners and lienholders, we also recognize that the state has substantial interests in restraining the use of potentially forfeitable property to punish criminal wrongdoers; to seek retribution for society; to deter continued use of the property for criminal activity; to remedy the wrongs done to society; and to compensate the state for its law enforcement services. However, the means by which the state can protect its interests must be narrowly tailored to achieve its objective through the least restrictive alternative where such basic rights are at stake. Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. Thus, due process under article I, section 9 requires the state to protect against the disposal of potentially forfeitable property pending final trial on the forfeiture by means less restrictive than seizure where feasible under the circumstances. [16] For example, the state can use a notice of lis pendens, a property bond, a restraining order, or a combination thereof. Due process also requires notice and the opportunity for those claiming an interest in the property to be heard throughout the forfeiture process. Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. It is clear that real and personal property are substantially different both in the interests of the parties involved and in the ability of owners or lienholders to dispose of their interests. Therefore, the manner in which due process applies to the preliminary restraint, notice, and hearing requirements varies when distinguishing between the forfeiture of interests in real and personal property. Regarding matters of real property, due process requires that the state must provide notice and schedule an adversarial hearing for interested parties on the question of probable cause prior to any initial restraint, other than lis pendens, on the real property being subjected to forfeiture. To comply with due process, a real property forfeiture action under the Act would begin with the state's filing of a petition for rule to show cause in the circuit court where the property is located or where the crime is alleged to have taken place. Simultaneously, the state would record a notice of its petition with the property records of the appropriate clerk of court's office, which will serve as a lis pendens. [17] This recordation shall be deemed a constructive seizure for purposes of commencing a forfeiture action under the Act. The state would immediately schedule an adversarial preliminary hearing to determine if probable cause exists to maintain the forfeiture action, and to resolve all questions pertaining to the temporary restraints on the real property pending final disposition. Notice of the petition and the adversarial preliminary hearing must be served on all interested parties. If probable cause is found at the adversarial preliminary hearing, the court may, at its discretion, enter such orders as are necessary to protect the respective interests of the parties. This preliminary stage should, of course, be expeditiously completed to protect the rights of all the parties. We would anticipate that the adversarial hearing will take place within ten days of the filing of the petition. Regarding matters of personal property, due process permits the state to seize personal property prior to notice or an opportunity for a hearing, provided that notice is sent and the opportunity for an adversarial preliminary hearing is made available as soon as possible after seizure. We envision that this situation will arise in two types of circumstances: when the state has not yet taken possession of the property; and when the state already has lawfully taken possession of the property, such as evidence seized while making an arrest. In those situations where the state has not yet taken possession of the personal property that it wishes to be forfeited, the state may seek an ex parte preliminary hearing. At that hearing, the court shall authorize seizure of the personal property if it finds probable cause to maintain the forfeiture action. In those situations where a law enforcement agency already has lawfully taken possession of personal property during the course of routine police action, the state has effectively made an ex parte seizure for the purposes of initiating a forfeiture action. After the ex parte seizure of personal property, the state must immediately notify all interested parties that the state has taken their property in a forfeiture action; and that they have the right to request a postseizure adversarial preliminary hearing. If requested, the preliminary hearing shall be held as soon as is reasonably possible to make a de novo determination as to whether probable cause exists to maintain the forfeiture action; and to determine whether continued seizure of the property is the least restrictive means warranted by the circumstances to protect against disposal of the property pending final disposition. Again, as with real property forfeitures, this initial stage should be expeditiously completed, and we anticipate that the adversarial preliminary hearing, if requested, will take place within ten days of the request. In all forfeiture cases, due process under article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution requires that notice shall be served on all persons whom the agency knows, or with reasonable investigation should know, have a legal interest in the subject property. Notice shall advise those persons that a forfeiture action is pending against the particular property or properties. In real property forfeiture actions, notice must advise interested parties of the time and place for which the preliminary adversarial hearing has been scheduled. In personal property forfeiture actions, notice must advise interested parties that they have a right to an adversarial preliminary hearing upon request. In this preliminary stage of real and personal property forfeitures, due process requires the state to establish probable cause to believe that the property was used in the commission of a crime pursuant to the terms of the Act. Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. If the state establishes probable cause, the court shall order the property restrained throughout the pendency of the forfeiture action by the least restrictive means necessary under the circumstances. Under no circumstances may the state continue its restraint on the property pending final disposition unless notice and an opportunity to be heard in an adversarial proceeding are provided to all potential claimants. Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const.