Florida v. White, Tyvessel (05/17/1999)

By: Brenda Scholten, Medill News Service

Questions presented

Whether the warrantless seizure of a motor vehicle under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act (absent other exigent circumstances) violates the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution so as to render evidence seized in a subsequent inventory search of the vehicle inadmissible in a criminal prosecution.

Brief

On Oct. 14, 1993 Tyvessel Tyvorous White was arrested on charges of selling drugs. Police obtained the keys to his car, seized it from the parking lot of his place of employment and searched it. No warrant was obtained for the seizure. Based on police eyewitnesses and videotapes, the officers believed that Whites car had been used in the delivery and sale of cocaine on three occasions that summer. The search uncovered two pieces of crack cocaine in the ashtray of the dashboard.

Prior to trial, White objected to the introduction into evidence of the cocaine seized during the search of his automobile. The trial court reserved ruling on the issue until after the jury had rendered its verdict. After the jury found White guilty, the court denied Whites motion to suppress the cocaine evidence.

A divided Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed Whites conviction and approved the governments warrantless seizure of Whites car, explaining that the seizure was consistent with the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. The forfeiture statute gives power to the state attorney general to seize a vehicle used to facilitate a narcotics transaction, or any other felony, without seeking a warrant or court order.

White argued that the seizure was invalid because the officers did not have probable cause to believe the vehicle contained contraband at the time of seizure. But the court observed, ""Under the Forfeiture Act, the seizing agency is required only to have probable cause to believe that the property sought to be seized Ôwas used, is being used, was attempted to be used, or was intended to be used in violation of the Forfeiture Act.""

The court also held that because the police properly seized Whites vehicle under the Forfeiture Act, ""the subsequent inventory search was reasonable and, thus, the cocaine seized in the vehicle was properly admitted at trial.""

In dissent, Judge Wolf asserted that ""warrantless seizure of an automobile absent exigent circumstances violates the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution even though probable cause exists to believe that the automobile is subject to forfeiture as a result of prior narcotics transactions.""

In February 1998, a divided Florida Supreme Court reversed. The majority held that a citizens property is protected by the federal and Florida constitutions against warrantless seizure even when the seizure is done in accordance with a forfeiture statute.

The court reasoned that in the absence of exigent circumstances, the 4th Amendment requires the seizure of property, in accordance with the state Forfeiture Act is to be preceded by a hearing before a neutral magistrate. ""We find no language in the Fourth Amendment suggesting that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects applies to all searches and seizures except civil-forfeiture seizures in drug cases,"" the court reasoned.

The court held that the seizing officers did not have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained contraband at the time of the seizure. The court also found that Whites vehicle was parked safely at his place of employment and that White and his keys were in custody, posing no ""undue burden on the government"" in obtaining a warrant.

Two justices dissented. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Wells noted that the majoritys decision ""puts our state procedure at odds with federal forfeitures in Florida since the 11th Circuit is among the majority of jurisdictions which recognize that warrantless seizures pursuant to forfeiture statutes are not in violation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.""

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on Nov. 16, 1998 and allowed White to proceed in forma pauperis.

In an amicus brief supporting the State of Florida, the U.S. Solicitor General argued that the 4th Amendment allows a warrantless seizure and subsequent inventory search of property based on probable cause, so long as the seizure does not involve any intrusion on privacy rights. The Court allowed the Solicitor General to participate in oral argument as amicus.

Carolyn Snurkowski, counsel for the state of Florida, said in an interview that precedent supports her case. ""The majority opinion in the state supreme and federal courts is that a pre-seizure warrant is not constitutionally required under forfeiture law,"" she said. According to Snurkowski, more than 20 states have filed amicus briefs in the case.

On May 17, 1999, the Court reversed and remanded, holding that the 4th Amendment does not require that police obtain a warrant before seizing an automobile from a public place when they have probable cause to believe that it is forfeitable contraband. Justice Clarence Thomas conceded for the 7-2 majority that police in the case lacked probable cause to believe that White's car contained contraband, though they had probable cause to believethat the car itself was contraband under Florida law.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.