Orlando Sanchez v. City of West Palm Beach, 149 So. 3d 92

Officers stopped Sanchez for traffic violations, smelled marijuana, searched his car, and found $11,165 in cash plus a misdemeanor amount of marijuana. Officers testified Sanchez initially said the cash came from gambling at a friend’s house.
Sanchez denied the residential-poker admission, claimed he was a professional gambler who won the cash at the Palm Beach Kennel Club, and sought to introduce gambling tickets, racing programs, tax returns, and a Kennel Club employee to corroborate.
The trial court initially allowed the documentary evidence but excluded the Kennel Club witness and found probable cause; the City moved for reconsideration arguing the claimant’s evidence was irrelevant at an adversarial preliminary hearing.
On reconsideration the court barred Sanchez from presenting his documentary and witness evidence, relying on a narrower view of the hearing, and again found probable cause to continue the seizure.
The Fourth District reversed, holding that at an adversarial preliminary hearing the claimant may present evidence and witnesses rebutting the agency’s claim that the property is proceeds of illegal activity; those materials were relevant to the probable cause determination.

Issue	Sanchez's Argument	City of West Palm Beach's Argument	Held
Whether a claimant may present documentary evidence and witnesses at an adversarial preliminary hearing to rebut probable cause for forfeiture	Sanchez argued he could introduce receipts, racing programs, tax returns, and a Kennel Club witness to show lawful source of funds and rebut probable cause	City argued claimant’s evidence that was not known to the seizing agency at the time of seizure is irrelevant at the adversarial preliminary hearing and should be excluded	Court held claimants may present evidence and witnesses at the adversarial preliminary hearing to rebut probable cause; exclusion of Sanchez’s evidence was reversible error
Proper focus of the adversarial preliminary hearing: probable cause at time of seizure vs. at time of hearing	Sanchez argued the hearing should consider current evidence showing whether property was used in violation of the Act	City urged focus on whether officers had probable cause at the time of seizure (what they knew then)	Court held the hearing examines whether there is probable cause at the time of the hearing (not limited to the officers’ knowledge at seizure)

Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1991) (due process requires notice and opportunity for an adversarial preliminary hearing soon after seizure)
Velez v. Miami-Dade County Police Dep’t, 934 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 2006) (statute’s ‘‘adversarial’’ hearing contemplates opposing parties presenting evidence)
Gomez v. Village of Pinecrest, 41 So. 3d 180 (Fla. 2010) (distinguishes probable cause inquiry at seizure stage from forfeiture trial issues such as claimant’s knowledge)
Wright v. Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 531 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (earlier precedent on evidentiary burdens cited by parties)
City of Coral Springs v. Forfeiture of a 1997 Ford Ranger Pickup Truck, 803 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (probable cause inquiry focuses on adequacy and reliability of information supporting belief of statutory violation)
Beary v. Bruce, 804 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (adversarial hearing examines whether there ‘‘is’’ probable cause at the time of the hearing)
Pope v. Pope, 901 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (due process requires opportunity to testify and call witnesses; denial is fundamental error)