MARSHAL: PLEASE RISE. PLEASE BE SEATED.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THE NEXT CASE ON THE MORNING'S CALENDAR IS V ELEZ VE RSUS MIAMI-DADE COUNT Y PO LICE DEPARTMENT , OTHERWISE KN OWN AS " SHOW ME THE MONEY" !

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. PAUL MORRIS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER , WA LTER VE LEZ. IN THIS CASE , THE THIRD DISTRICT CERTIFIED CONFLICT WITH THE DECI SIONS OF THE FOURTH IN BARUCH AND JOHN LOUIE , S AYS THAT THE PERSON AT THE TIME OF PROCEDURE , HAVE STANDING AT AN ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDING , TO CHALLENGE THE PROCEDURE, WITHOUT SHOWING A PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY. THIS CASE , OF COURSE , INVOLVES STATUT ORY CONSTRUCTION OF THE FORFEITURE STATUTE , AND OURPOSITION IS THAT THE CERTIFIED QUESTION SHOULD BE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE , FOR SE VERAL REASONS. FIRST , BASED U PON THE PLAINLANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE , SECOND, THE RE QUIRED ST RICT CONSTRUCTION THAT MUST BE AFFORDED THE FLORIDA FORFEITURE STATUTE, AND FINALLY , THE REQUIREMENT THAT PROCED URAL DUE PROCESS OF LAW , MUST BE AFF ORDED PERSONS AT THE VERY BEGINNING STAGES OF THE FORFEITURE ACT , IN THIS CASE THE FIRST OF THE TWO STAGES , THE ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING.

LET ME AS K YOU AQUESTION. IF WE GO BAC K TO THE REAL PROPERTY CASE, IF SAYS IN ALL FOR FEITURE CASES , DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FLORIDA STA TUTE , IS, SHALL BE SE RVED ON ALL PERSONS WH O HAVE A L EGAL INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY .

YES, YOUR HONOR.

AND THEN IT SAYS IN PERSONAL PROP ERTY FORF EITURE A CTS, SINCE NOT ICE MUST ADVISE INTERESTED PARTIESTHAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT T O AN ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING.

YES, SIR.

SO IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT, EVEN PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO LE GAL INTEREST , BE IT OWNERSHIP , ANY COLORABLE OWNERSHIP , POSSESSORY OR LIEN HOLDER INTEREST IN THEPROPERTY, SHOULD HAVE STANDING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?

NO, YOUR HONOR. OUR POSITION IS THAT , IN RESPONSE TO THAT LANGUAGE F ROM REAL PROPERTY , THE LEGISLATURE G AVE STAN DING TO PERSONS ENTITLED TO NOTICE AND DEFINED WHAT THOSE PERSONS ARE , AND THE LEGAL INTEREST THAT GIVES A PERSON ENTITLED TO NOTICE, ASTANDING TO REQUEST AND OBTAIN AN AD VERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING , WHI CHIS THE INTEREST MR. VEL EZ HAS , IS THAT OF A PERSON IN POSSESSION AFTER PROPERTY ATTHE TIME IT IS SEIZED.

AND THE LANGUAGE SAYS THAT A PERSON ENTITLED TO NOTICE IS A PERSON IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY . SO YOU ARE JUST GOING ON THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE.

THAT'S CORREC T, YOUR H ONOR.

IT DOES N'T NECESSARILYMEAN, THEN, THAT THEY HAVE, THEN THEY HAV E A RIGHT TO NOTICE O F THE ADV ERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING , BU T,THEN, DO THEY , DOES THAT NECESSARILY GIVE RISE TO THEIR BEING ABLE TO PARTICIPATE BEYOND THAT, IF THERE IS N'T A PROPRIETARY INTEREST ESTABLISHE D?

YES. WE SUBMIT THAT THAT IS A LOGICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE, BUT IT IS, ALSO , THE STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE. WE MUST , IF THERE I S AN AMBIGUITY HERE. IT MUST BE CONSTRUED AG AINST THE SEIZING AGENCY, AND HERE THE LEGISLATURE HAS CLEARLY

CAN YOU CLARIFY BECAUSE ARE SAYING. ARE YOU SAYI NG THEY ARE ENTITLED TO PARTIC IPATE IN THE FORFEITURE PROCEE DING?

NO. ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE AT THE ADVE RSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING.

BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY GIVE THEM STANDING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FORFEITURE .

THAT'S CORRECT.

BECAUSE, THEN, THAT IS EXTENDED TO A CLAIMANT .

CORRECT.

SO THEY ARE NOT THE SAME , AND EXPLAIN IN TERMS OF THE STATUTORY SCHEME , WHY THAT IS NOT ONLY , YOU SAY, CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAIN LANGUAGE BUT CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF HOW THIS PROCEEDS ALON G. THIS GUY , YOUR CLIENT, I S IN , I MEAN , HE I S I N THE VE HICLE , AND THIS MONEY IS SEIZ ED. HE SAYS IT IS NOT H IS, BUT PRESUMABLY , RIGHT, DI DN'T H E SAY THAT?

THAT IS AN ALLEGATION MADE IN THE COMPLAINT, WHICH FOR THE PURPOSES OF OUR ARGUMENT, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT CAN BE ESTABLISHED OR NOT IN AN ADVERSARIAL SE TTING.

ALL RIGHT. SO, THEN, WHAT IS THE REASON THAT YOU CAN END UP SAYING YOU CAN PARTICIPATE IN ONE BUT WOULDN'T HAVE STANDING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE OTHER?

BECA USE THE LEGISLATURE, IN RESP ONSE TO REAL PROPER TY, AND IN REAL PROPERTY THIS COURT EXPL AINED THE TWO STAGES OF THE FORFEITURE PROCEEDING. THE LEGISLATURE CL EARLY D REW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF STANDING NEEDED FOR THOSE TWO STAGES.

I AM ASKING YOU TO EXPLAIN , WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE EXPLAINED IT IN ANYTHING IN THE HI STORY , JUST GIVE ME THE REAS ON, THE POLICY REASON , WHY IT MAKESSENSE , TO HAVE TWO DIFFERENTTYPES OF STANDING.

WELL , FORFEITURE HAS ALWAYS BEEN DE EMED A HARSH PENALTY, A MARSH REM EDY , AND I THINK THER E IS A RATIONALE BEHIND DEFINING PERSON ENTITLED TO NOTICE IN A LESS STRINGENT REQUIREMENT OF STANDING, WHEN PROPERTY , PERSONAL PROPERTY IS SEIZED FROM THAT PERSON'S POS SESSION . THAT SHOUL D BE EN OUGH , AND IS ENOUGH UNDER THE STATUTE, TO TRIGGER THE SEIZING AGENCY'S BUR DEN TO PROVE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A CONTINUED RESTRAINT ON THAT PROPERTY.

LET'S AS SUME THAT , AT THE ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING OR PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING, THAT T HERE WAS AN UNREBUTTED SHOWING THAT THERE HAD BEEN , B OTH , AN ABANDONMENT OF THE PROPERTY , AND TESTIMONY SUCH AS THE DEFENDANT OR CLAI MANT OR POSSESS OR OR HOWEVER OR POSES OR OR HOWEVER - - OR POSSESS ERROR YOUR CLIENT POSSESSER OR YOUR CLIENT , HAD STATED THIS PROPERTY , YOU CAN HAVE IT, I DON'T KNOW HOW IT GOT THERE. KEEP IT. AN UNREBUTTED SHOWING OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT , AND THE TRIAL COURT CONCLUDED , WHATWOULD BE THE POSITI ON OF YOUR CLIENT AFT TWO PARTS, AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF ESTABLISH MENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE, WHAT WOULD BE THE STANDING OF YOUR C LIENT AT THE MERI TS HEAR ING OR WHATEVER WE WANT TO CALL IT?

I THINK AT THAT PO INT THERE WOULD BE A FINDING BY THE TRIAL JUDGE THAT THE CC MET ITS BURDEN OF PROBABLE CAUSE AT THE ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING, WHICH IS THE ONLY ISSUE THERE, AND THEN IN ORDER FOR MY CLIENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FORFEITURE HEARING , A PROPRIETARY OR OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY WOULD , FIRST , HAVE TO BE ESTABLISHED.HE HAS TO BE AFFORDED THAT OPPORTUNITY, AND IF HE CAN'TMEET IT , OR IF HE IS JUST GOING TO RELY UPON THE UNREBUTTED SHOWING THAT OCCURRED AT THE ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING, HE HAS NO STANDING AT THE FORFEITURE HEARING.

SO HOW WOULD HE GO ABOUTDOING THAT? ARE YOU SAYING THAT HE WOULDMAKE A CLAIM SUBSEQUENT TO THAT ? AND THEN ATTEMPT TO ASSUM E OR E STABLISH STANDING ?

YES. AFTER THE ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING FINDINGAGAINST HIM ON PROBABLE CAUSE , HE WOULD, THEN , BEAR THE BURDEN OF SHOWING STANDING IN AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST, AS A CLI MB AND THE

HOW, ALL RIGHT AS A CLAIMANT

HOW, ALL RIGHT , GO ABOUT H OW WOULD HE RECEIVE NOTICE, IF WE SAID THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES , WHE RE IS HE ENTITLED TO NOTICE, THEN , OF THE MERITS HEARING?

AFTER THE ADVERSARIAL, WELL, IN TERMS OF PROCED URE, AFTER THE ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING, THEN THE FORFEITURE HEARING WOULD BE SET.

WELL , THAT IS WHAT, S O YOU ARE SAYING HE IS ENTITLED TO BOTH, THOUGH , THAT HE IS EN TITLED TO NOTICE OF THE ADVERSARIAL PROBABLE CAUSE DETERMINATION , AND HE IS ENTITLED TO NOTICE OF WHAT I AM C ALLING THE MERITS .

HE WOULD CERTAINLY BE ENTITLED TO NOTICE O F SE COND STAGE

I HAVE DIFFICULTY IN RESPONSE TO YOUR ANSWERS TO THE QUE STION THAT JUSTICE PARIENTE ASKED YOU.

I AM SORR Y.

WHERE YOU SEEM TO SUGGEST, NO , YOU ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT ENTI TLEMENT T O NOTICE AT THE PROBABLE CAUSE DETERMINATION THAT YOU ARENOT T ALKING ABOUT WHETHER YOUR CLIENT WAS ENTITLED TO NOTICE O F MERITS HEARING.

I AM SORRY IF I CONFUSED THE COURT. OUR POSITION IS THAT THE SOLE VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE IN THIS CASE , WASTHE FA ILURE T O HOL D AN ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING , AND THE RESULT , AS A RESULT OF THAT FAI LURE , UNDER THE DeGREGORIO DECISION AND MANY OR DECISIONS OF VARIOUS DIS TRICT COURSE OF APP EAL , BECAUSE OF THAT VIOLATION, MY CLIENT IS ENTITLED T O RETURN OF THE PROPERTY , WITHOUT US EVER GETTING TO THE SEC OND STAGE OF THE FORFEITURE ACT , NAMELY THE OWNERSHIP FORFEITURE HEARING.

SO YOUR POSITION IS THAT YOU COU L D HAVE A CLIENT WHO HAD N O PROVEN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY. IN FACT , IT COULD B E A CRIMINAL INTEREST OR A STR AW MAN SET UP , COULD COME TO THE HEARING , ATTACK PROBABLE CAUSE AND HAVE THE PROPERTY RETURNED TO THEM.

NO, YOUR HONOR. MY CLIENT HAS A PROVEN UNDISPUTED , CONC EDED INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY.

WHAT IS THAT?

POSSESSI ON.

WHAT IS THE PROOF?

POSS ESSION. HE IS A PERSON ENTITLED TO NOTICE AS DEFINED B Y THESTATUTE.

BUT ONLY BY THE STATUTE. YOU ARE NOT RELYING ON A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OR ANYOTHER RIGHT.YOU ARE JUST RELYING ON THELANGUAGE OF THE DEFINITION OF WHO IS ENTITLED TO NOTICE.

CORR ECT , WHICH CONF ERS, OUR POSITION IS THE DEFINITION OF PERSON ENTITLED TO NOTICE BY THE LEGISLATURE , CONFERS STANDING UPON MY CLIENT , IN THE FIRST STAGE OF THE FORFEITURE PROCEEDING , WHICH IS THE ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING.

SO LET ME , I DON'T MEAN TO GET TOO RIDICULOUS. U SE A HYPOTHETICAL. LET'S SAY YOUR CLIENT WAS ABANK ROBBER , ST OLE $100,000, IS RUNNING DOWN THE STREET , G ETS CAUGHT , POLICE OFFICERS STEAL IT. FOR SOME REASON , Y OU R POSITION IS THIS GIVES HIM , HE IS E NTITLED T O NOTICE AND APPEAR AND TO PARTS E IGHT I N THIS PARTICIPATE IN THIS ADVERSARIAL HEARING, AND IF NOBODY SHOWS UP AND THE STATE DOESN'T PROVE PROBABLE CAUSE , THEN THE STATE HAS TO TURN THE $100,000 OVER TO THAT PERSON.

AS IN THAT CASE, THERE ARE ALLEGATION DOLLARS MADEIN A FORFEITURE COMPLAINT , AND UNDER THE STATUTE AND UND ER THE PO LICY OF FORFEITURE OF THE STATE , A SEIZING AGENCY IS NOT ALLOWED TO SIMPLY EXPARTE , TAKE PROPERTY , PERSONAL PROPERTY FROM A PERSON'S POSSESSION , WITHOUT HAVING TO FO LLOW C ERTAIN PROCEDURES THEREAFTER, UNDER THE STATUTE. IN EX TREME EXAMPLES , IT IS GOING TO BE VERY SI MPLE.

IS THE ONLY ISSUE THAT WEHAVE, THEN, THE ENTITLEMENTTO NOTICE AT THE PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING? IS THAT

NO, NO , YOUR HONOR , MY CLIENT WAS G IVEN NOTICE , AND IN RESP ONSE TO THAT NOTICE HE REQU ESTED AN AT VERSE AIRLINE PRELIMINARY HEARING ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING , BUT WAS INCORRECTLY NOT AFFORD ED ON . HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE AT ALL. IN OTHER WORDS THERE WAS NO ADVERSARIAL STAGE OF THE HEARING, NO FIR ST STAGE CONDUCTED , AND THAT WAS IN CLEAR VIOLATIO N OF THESTATUTE.

CH IEF JUSTICE: JUSTICE CAN CAN'T HAS A QUESTION.

THAT IS OKAY. JUSTICE CAN TERO HAS A QUESTION.

FR OM MY REVIEW OF THE INFORMATION, THE COURT DID F IND PROBABLE CAUSE AND A HEARING WAS ADEQUATELY HE LD. I AM REFERRING TO YOUR ARGUMENT THAT, IF WE FIND I N YOUR FA VOR , THAT W E SIMPLY HAVE TO GIVE BACK THE M O NEY TO YOUR C LIENT. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE REMEDY WOULD BE TO HOLD THE PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING IN WHICH YOUR CLIENT COULD PARTICIPATE, NOT SIMPLY TO GIVE YOUR CLIENT BACK THE MONEY.

I THINK THE COURT'S DECISION IN DeGREGORIO ANSWERS.THAT IF YOU ARE GOING TO GIVE THE SEIZING AGENCY A SECOND CHANCE , THEN YOU ARE RENDERING THE STATUTES STATUTE'S THE STATUTE'S REQUIREMENTS ILLUSION OR I. DEADLINES AND ILLUSORY. DEADLINES AND HEARINGS AREN'T STRICT REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE.

LET ME ASK YOU THIS , THERE ARE CASES IN WHICH THEPERSON IN POSSESSION OF THE DOCUMENT SIGNS A DOCUMENT AND SAYS THIS ISN'T MY PROPERTY. THAT PERSON , ACCORDING TO YOU , W OULD BE ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING. WOULD THAT PERSON BE ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING , IF THE STATEPRESENTS THIS DOCUMENT S AYING THIS PERSON DISCLAIMED OWNERSHI P, EVEN THOUGH THE PERSON HAD POSSESSION, DISCLAIMED OWNERSHIP OF THE P ROPERTY AND SA ID IT IS NOT M INE. I DON'T KNO W HOW IT GOT INTO MY SUIT CASE . CLEARLY IT GOT THERE, SO I POSSESSED IT, BUT I DON'T K NOW HOW IT GOT THERE AND IT IS NOT MINE AND I HAVE NO CLAIM TO IT , WOULD THAT PERSON BE ALLO WED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING?

IF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY HAD BEEN SEIZED FROM THE POSSESSION OF THAT PERSON , THAT PERSON ABSOLU TELY HAS THE RIGHT TO NOTICE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ATTHE ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING. W HETHER THE SEIZING AG ENCY IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO SATISFY ITS BURDEN AND WHETHER THOSE FACTS AS ALLEGED ARE GOING TO BE TRUE, A THAT IS WHAT AN ADVERSARIAL PROCESS IS ALL ABOUT.

SO WE WOULD HAVE TO DISAPPROVE ALL OF THOSE CASES THAT SAY , IN ORDER TO SHOW SOME KIND OF INTEREST, THE CASES THAT SAY THAT YOU DISCLAIMED OWN ERSHIP IN THIS DOCUMENT, THEN, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE. WE WOULD HAVE TO DISAPPROVE OF THOSE CASES.

NO , YOUR HONOR , BECAUSE OWNERSHIP IS NOT AT ISSUE AT THE ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING.OWNER SHIP IS ONLY AT ISSUE AT THE SECOND STAGE OF THE FORFEITURE PROCEEDING.WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A WHOLESALE DE NIAL OF DUE PROCESS.AT THE FIRST STAGE, WHERE OWNERSHIP INTEREST IS NOT AT ISSUE.

I NOT, A G AIN, IN RESPONSE TO JUSTICE B E LL'S QUESTION, YOU SAID THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE OF DUE PROCES S. YOU SAID THIS IS AN ISSUE OF THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THESTATUTE.

IT IS BOTH , YOUR HONOR , BECAUSE AS A RESULT , MY CLIENT WAS DENIED A MEANING FUL OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AFTER HE REQU ESTED AN ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING , AND THE STATUTEGIVES HIM THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO THAT HEARING.

IF WE GO BAC K TO REAL PROPERTY, IT SAYS THE PURPOSE OF THE STRICT CONSTRUCTION AND EVERYTHING , IS YOU BA LANCE THE STATE INTEREST VERS US AN INDIVIDUAL INTEREST, BUT IT SAYS ONE OF THE THIN GS YOU CONSIDER IS THE NATURE OF THE PARTY AND THE SUBJECT OF THE RIGHT BEING INFRINGED UPON, AND BASICALLY WHAT YOUARE SAYING IS THE STATUTESAYS THAT A PERSON IN MERE POSSESSION IS ENTITLED TO THE RIGHT TO NOTICE OF THEHEARING , THAT THAT AFFORDSTHE PERSON NOT ONLY THERIGHT TO A HEARING BUT SATISFIES THAT PO RTION OF THE DUE PROCESS PRONG , THAT THERE IS A RIGHT TO THEPROPERTY BEING INFRINGED ON. LET ME MAKE IT REAL SIMPELT. IF YOUR REAL SIMPLE. IF YOUR PERSON HAS NO RIGHT OR CLAIM IN THE PROPERTY AND CANNOT SHOW THAT AS A PRELIMINARY MAT TER, WHAT DUE PROCESS RIGHT IS BEING INFRINGED UPON?

THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD AT THE FIRST STAGE OF THE FORFEITURE PROCEEDING , THEFIRST OF THE TWO STAGES. REAL PROPERTY SAYS THAT MY CLIENT HAS A RIGHT TO BE HEARD AT THE ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING. THAT IS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT , AND THE RIGHT THERE I S NOT MY CLIENT'S BURDEN TO SHOW OWNERSHIP AT THAT RIGHT. IT IS THE SEIZING AGE NCY'S B URDEN TO JUSTIFY THE TAKI NGOF THE PROPERTY FROM HIS PERSONAL POSSESSION, WITH A SHOWING OF PROBABLE CAUSE. IF THAT IS DONE, THEN WE GO , THEN AND ONLY THEN , DO WE PROCEED TO THE SECOND STAGE , WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A SHO WING BY MY CLIENT , OF A PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN THEPROPERTY, IN OR DER T O DEFEAT FORFEITURE, BUT WE DON'T GETTO THAT SECOND CAN STAGE , UNLESS THE TO THAT SECOND STAGE , UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT IN THIS CASE ME ETS ITS BURDEN AT THE FIRST STAGE , WHICH IT DIDN'T, BE CAUSE THE DEPARTMENT ARGUED THAT MY CLIENT SHOULD HAVE NO RIGHTAT ALL TO AN ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING, AND THAT

JUST TO GET THE PROCEDURE CORRECT, THE COMPLAINT ISN'TFILED UNTIL AFTER THE PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING, CORRECT?

IN THIS CASE THECOMPLAINT WAS FI LED, I THINKIT WAS FILED BEFORE THE ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING , BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. ANOTHER STATUTE REQUIRES ONLY THAT IT BE FILED AFTER , E VEN THOUGH

IT CAN BE FILED , AS LONG AS IT IS PROMPTLY FILEDWITHIN THE 45-DAY DEADLINE, THAT IS THE DeGREGORIO CASE , AND IF THAT IS VIO LATED , DeGREGORIO HOLD S THE PROPERTY IS RETURNED.

WELL , THE DIFFERENCE IS IN DeGRE GORIO , THERE WAS N O COMPLAINT FILED WI THIN 45 D AYS. HERE THERE WAS A HEARING HELD WITHIN 30 DAYS. THE DIFFER ENCE IS YOUR CLIENT WASN'T ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE , S O I DON'T SEE THOSE TWO AS NECESSARILY CO-EXTENSIVE.

I THINK THEY BOTH INVOLVE SIGNIFICANT VIOLATIONS OFTHE STATUTE. IN THE HEARING THAT WAS HELD , QUOTE/UNQUOTE HEARING IN THIS CASE WAS NOT AN ADVERSARIAL HEARING. IT WAS AN EXP ARTE HEARING.

YOU WOULD AG REE THAT THE QUESTION CERTIFIED HERE IS ONE ONLY OF STA NDING. CORRECT?

YES. AS TO THE ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING.

AND SO THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE TA KE N JURISDICTION .

YES, YOUR HONOR , AND OURPOSITION IS THAT THE FOURTH DISTRICT IS CORRECT ON THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IN BARUCH AND JOHN LOU'. JOHN LOUIE.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT . ROBERT FI ALLO AND R OBERT CIDADE FOR THE MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT. WHAT IS TAKEN HERE IS AN A CTION DEALING WITH PERSONAL PROPERTY. REAL PROPERTY DEALT WITH REAL PROPERTY, AND ACTUALLY THIS COURT EVEN STATED IN REAL PROPERTY , THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT , B OTH IN THE INTERESTS OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED AND THE ABILITY OF THE LIEN HOLD TORY DISPOSE OF THE INTEREST. THERE FORE

WHAT ABOUT THE STATUTE?

YOUR HONOR , THE STATUTEDOES NOT ESTABLISH TWO LEVELS OF STANDING , WHICH I BELIEVE IS NOT WHAT THIS COURT ATTEMPTED TO DO IN REAL PROLT . IN REAL PROPERTY.

DOESN' T THE PLAINLANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE SUPPORT HIS POSITION?

NO , YOUR HONOR, IT DOESN'T.THE STATUTE SAYS THAT THE PERSON WITH A STANDING POSITION IS ENTITLED TO A RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND ARIGHT TO A HEARING. THAT IS WHAT THE PROCESS ESTABLISHES.

WHY ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE A STATUTORY SCHEME THAT MANDATES, REQUIRES , AS YOUCAN SEE NOTICE TO SOMEONE, IF IT IS NOT NOTICE FOR A REASON. IS IT JUST NOTE NIECE THE ABSTRACT?

NO, YOUR HONOR.

FO LLOW IS IT JUST NOTICE IN THE ABS TRACT?

NO , YOUR HONOR.

FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE STATUTE. T ELL ME WH AT YOU ARE SAYING.

THE DUE PROCESS IN THE STATUTE IS NOTICE TO BE HEARD. SINCE THIS IS AN IN RIM ACTION AND THE PERSON MAY NOT NECESS ARILY BE THE MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE THE OWNER, THAT IS WHY THE PERSON MUST SHOW A REASONABLE INFERENCE TO CONTEST PROBABLE CAUSE.

THE NOTICE CONCEPT UNDER THE STATUTE IS TO GIVE WHOEVER HAD POSSESSION OF IT NOTICE, SO THEY CAN LET THE REAL OWNER KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON, TO COME IN.

RIGHT, OR IN FACT I F THEY ARE THE REAL OWNER , THEN THEY KNOW TO COME IN AND THAT RIGHT EXISTS.

THE L AW DOESN'T ALLOW THE STATE JUST TO ARBITRARILY TAKE PROPERTY FROM THE POSSESSION OF WH OEVER HAS POSSESSION OF I T AND THEN FORFEIT THAT PROPERTY , DOES IT?

NO.

ALL THAT THIS , OUR EARLIER DECISION SOME YEARS AGO AND THIS STATUTORYSCHEME DOES, IS SORT OF FOLLOW ALONG AND IT MAY WORK OUT IN ONE CASE AND IT MAY NOT WORK OUT IN ANOTHER CASE, THE OLD AD AGE ABOUT POSSESSION IS NINE TENTHS OF THE LAW OR WHATEVER. SO I AM HAVING DIFFICULTY H OW IT WOULD MAKE ANY SE NSE TO REQUIRE NOTICE, REALLY , SORT OF JUSTICE LE WIS 'S QUESTION , BUT NOT HAVING THAT PERSON PARTICIPATE. WE CAN HAVE MA NY VARIATIONS. WE CAN HAVE THE BA NK ROBBER, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY OBVIOUSLY THAT WA NTS TO SAY THAT , IDON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ALL THAT CASH , BE CAUSE THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY FEARFUL OF THE CRIMINAL SANCTIONS THAT MAY FOLLOW FROM DOING THAT, AND THE STATE MAY BE ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY IN THAT CASE EVEN TUALLY FORFEIT THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY HAVE REALLY GOT SOMEBODY, BUT WE , ALSO, MAY HAVE SI TUATIONS WHERE THE , THERE IS AN EXPENSIVE FUR CO AT THERE , AND THE PERSON SAYS , WELL , THAT IS NOT MINE , AND THE STATE TAKES POSSESSION OF IT , UNDER , AND THEN CONSTRUE ING THAT THAT IS NOT MINE , MEANING, WELL , JUST LIKE THE BANK ROBBER, BUT ALL THAT PERSON WAS SAYING , IS IT IS MY WIFE 'S! BUT HE DIDN'T SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, AT THAT TIME , AND THESE HEARINGS SHOULD SORT ALL OF THAT OUT, SHOU LD IT NOT, BUT I N ITIALLY , THE POSSESSOR OF PROPERTY HAS SUBSTANINGTS RIGHTS, AND THE STATE CAN SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS, AND THE STATE CANNOT JUST ARB ITRARILY TAKE FROM THAT POSS ESSOR , THE PROPERTY , AND ISN'T THAT WHAT THIS WHOLE SCHEME IS ABOUT?

THAT IS NOT OCCURRING, YOUR HONOR, THAT IS NOT WHAT IS OCCURRING. AGAIN , THE STATUTE IS CLEAR , IN THAT IT SAYS , LO OK , YOU HAVE A R IGHT TO NOTICE , AND THERE IS A RIGHT TO A HEARING, BUT SINCE THIS IS AN IN RIM ACTION AND IT IS PERSONAL PROPERTY AND THE POSSESS ER MAY NOTNECESSARILY BE THE OWNER OR HAVE LE GAL INTEREST. THEREFORE YOU HAVE TO COME FORWARD WITH SOMETHING TO SHOW THAT YOU HAVE THE STANDING, WH ICH THEN GO ES TO THE STANDING QUESTION.

WE REALLY ARE STRUGGLING WITH THIS.IF WE ARE GOI NG TO HAVE A HEARING, AND THIS PERSON WHO IS GIVEN THE NOTICE, HAS THE ACT UAL RIGHT TO REQUEST THEHEARING , C O RRECT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT PERSON REQUESTS A HEARING.THE HEARING HAS TO BE SET WITHIN A SPECIFIC TIME , AND THEN WHAT , WH AT DO YOU SAY TAKES PLAC E AT THAT HEARING, IF THE PERSON WHO IS GIVENTHE NOTICE , HAS NO RIGHT TO DO ANYTHI NG AT THE HEARING?

THEY DO HAVE THE RIGHT , BUT BEIN G THAT IT IS , AG AIN

WHAT, THEY DO HAVE THE RIGHT FOR WHAT THEN?

THEY DO HAVE A RIGHT TO CONTEST PROBABLE CAUSE , ANDTHE THIRD , LET ME B E CLE AR

I G UESS THAT IS WHAT WE WERE ALL T RYING TO GET AT , IS THE PERSON WHO GETS THE NOTICE, DOES IN FACT , H AV E THE RIGHT TO COME TO THAT HEARING AND CONTEST THE PROBABLE CAUSE!

YES. THEY DO, I F THEY E STABLISH IN THIS CASE , AND THE LINE OF CASES FROM THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL F ROM MUNYOS TO THE CASE AT BAR , TA LK ABOUT CURRENCY.

YOU SAY THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO COME TO THE COURT ANDTALK WITH B CURRENCY. WHERE IS THAT ACT ION?

I THINK THAT IS IN THE BRIEF.WE HAVE THAT RIGHT TO ACTION. WHEN THE INTERVENOR COMES TO COURT , THEY HAVE - -

WHY ISN'T THE POSSESSOR , WHY ISN'T THERE A SUFFICIENT REQUIRING OF THE STATE TO SHOW THAT THEY HAD LEGALCAUSE TO SEIZE THAT FURCOAT?

IN THIS PARTIC ULAR CASE AT BAR WITH THE F ACTS HERE, THE PERSON IN POSSESSION SAID IT IS NOT MY M ONEY, BUT NOT MY M ONEY.

BUT THAT IS WHY YOU HAVE HEARINGS . THAT IS WHY YOU DO THIS. WHY SHOULDN'T THE STATE INITIALLY HAVE THE BU RDEN AT SUCH PROCEEDING, TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY HADLEGAL CAUSE TO TAKE THAT FUR COAT? ARE YOU SAYING, NO , THE STATE DOESN'T HAVE ANY REQUIREMENT TO DO T HAT?

YES, WE DO . WE HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT , AND THAT IS WHY THE STATUTEGOES ON TO SAY THAT THESWORN AFFIDAVIT WI LL BE , AN D THE PETITION WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT, AND THE COURT WILL MAKE A DETERMINATION , BUT LET'S SAY IN AN EXPA RTE SITUATION , WE DON'T COME IN AND FILE ACOMPLAINT AND AUTOMATICALLY WE GET PROBABLE CAUSE AND WE ARE ABLE TO HOLD THE MONEYAND CONTINUE WITH THE FORFEITURE ACTION .

TO AN SWER JUSTICE ANS TEAD 'S QUESTION ABOUT THE FUR COAT , MY UNDERSTANDING, CORRECT ME WHERE I AM W RONG , IS THAT THE POSSESSOR OF THE FUR COAT WOULD B E ENTITLED TO HAVE NOTICE, REQUEST THEHEARING , COME TO THE HEARING , AND WHAT THE CASE LAW IS SAYING IS , THE POSSESS ER OF THE FUR COAT, LET'S SAY TWO PEOPLE SHOW UP AT THE HEARING AND SAY IT IS MY COAT. NO , IT IS MY COAT. THAT THE JUDGE WOULD PUT SOMEBODY UNDER O ATH OR AN ATTORNEY COULD AP PEAR WITH ASWORN AFFIDAVIT , AND SOMEBODY JUST HAVE TO CLAIMA COLORABLE INTEREST IN THAT FUR COAT , TO PARTICIPATE AT THE HEARING S THAT WHAT CASE LAW IS SAYING OUT OF THETHIRD?

YES , YOUR HONOR.

SO SOMEBODY COULD COME TO COURT AND SAY THAT IS MY FUR COAT. THAT IS ALL THEY HAVE TO SAY.

YES.

WHAT IF A PERSON COMES IN AND SAYS THIS IS NOT MY FUR COAT BUT THIS FUR COAT BELONGS TO MY FRIEND, AND IDON'T KNOW WHERE HE IS AT THIS MO MENT. HE HAS BEEN GIVEN NOTICE. HE REQUES TED THE HEARING ANDIT WAS IN HIS POSSESSION , BUT NOW YOU ARE SAYING HE CAN'T DO ANYTHING BEYOND THAT, BECAUSE HE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THIS COAT WAS IN MY POSSESSION BUT IT REALLY BELONG TO SAY AFRIEND OF MINE.

NO, THAT IS NOTOWNERSHIP.WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT , THAT PERSON , I WOULD INTERPRET UNDER THE CASE LAW TO SAY THAT THAT PERSON HAS STANDING TO CONTEST BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE COAT. THEY RECEIVED THE COAT FROMTHE OWNER , AND LET'S SAY IN THAT SCEN ARIO THAT THE FUR COAT WAS BEING GIVEN TO GO TO A SPEC IAL EVENT AND THE OWNER LENT IT TO THE PE RSON TO GO TO THE SPECIAL EVENT.

ONLY THOSE P E OPLE WHO SAY I HAVE , YOU GOT IT FROM MY POSSESSION BUT I DON'T KNOW WHO HAD IT , I DON'T KNOW WHO OWNS IT , I D ON'T KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT IT , THEY HAVE NO STAND O'CLOCK , EVEN THOUGH THEY REQUESTED NO STANDING , EVEN THOU GHTHEY REQUESTED THE HEARING.

I THIN K IT IS FACTOSPECIFIC, YOUR HONOR, AND IWOULD SAY WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO IS THAT POSSESSION HAS TO ALSO BE LIN KED TO AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST OR AN INTEREST IN IT LEGALLY , EVEN AS , PERHAPS, A BAILEE OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. THERE ARE SITUATIONS LIKE WE DISCUSSED HERE WITH THE COAT,THAT THE OWNER OF THE COAT MAY HAVE LEGITIMATELY GIVENTHE COAT TO S OMEONE TO USE , AND THEN IF THE COAT I S SEIZED AND THE OWNER IS NOT AVAILABLE , ARGUABLY , THE PERSON IN POSSESSION OF THE COAT HAS AN INTEREST IN THE COAT. IT WAS LENT TO THEM.

OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE ARE SAYING THAT AT THE TIME THAT WHOEVER WAS AR OUND THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME IT WAS SEIZED , MU ST AT LE AS T COME IN AND SAY , YES , I POSSESSEDIT. YOU SEEM AL MOST TO BE CHALLENGING WHETHER THIS PARTY POSSESSED BECAUS E IT IS IN THE BACKSEAT AND DECLINED ANY KNOWLEDGE OF IT. I DON'T KNOW HOW IT GOT THERE.I DON'T IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING?

NO.NO.

YOU ARE SAYING IF THEY COME IN AND ACKNOWLEDGE POSSESSION, THEY SEEM TO HAVE STANDING .

PERHA PS I DI DN'T MAKE MYSELF UNDERSTOOD. I APOLOGIZE . THE ACT OF POSSESSION DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THEY HAVE A LEGAL INTEREST OR THEY ARE THE OWN ER. AS WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING IN THE HYPOTHETICALS , I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS COURT IN REAL PROPERTY, INTENDED TO ESTABLISH TWO LEVELS OF STANDING TO CONTEST A FORFEITURE . AN ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING IS A PROCEDURE IN FORFEITURE, AND THE CASE-IN-CHIEF IF IT GOES TO T RIAL , IS THE PROCEEDING IN FORFEITURE. THEY ARE ALL THE SA ME. AND IT SEEMS .

THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS. A PLAIN READING OF THE STATUTE , SEEMS TO MEAN THAT THEY DID INTEND A TWO-STEP PROCESS. ANOTHER ADVERSARIAL HEARINGIS TO DETERMINE IF THEPROPERTY, PERSONAL PROPERTY CAN CONTIN UE TO BE HELD , UNTIL THE FI NAL FORFEITURE , AND I DON'T SEE THOSE AS SEPARATE, YOUR HONOR. AND I DON'T READ THE STATUTE AS SUCH. IT IS CLEAR IN ITS LANGUAGE THAT WHAT IT IS SAYING IS DUE PROCESS, AS THIS COURT STATED IN REAL PROPERTY , SAYS, YOU MUST GIVE NOTICE AND THE OPPORTUNIT Y TO BE HEARD. AND IF YOU GIVE THAT , BEINGTHAT IT IS AN IN REALM ACTION AND DEPENDING ON THE AN IN REM ACTION AND DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES , YOU MAY NOT KNOW WHAT THE INTEREST IS , THAT THE PERSON WITH STAND ING BE REQUIRED TO COME IN AT THE PRELIMINARY ADVERSARIAL HEARING AND CHALLENGE THE FORFEITURE AND SHOULD SHOW THAT I HAVE A LEGAL OWNERSHIP INTEREST .

WHAT I HEARD THAT YOUR , Y OUR OPPONENT HAD ? THEY GOT NOTICE. WHERE WAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD?

THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD WAS THAT THE HEARING WAS HELD.

BUT THEY WEREN'T HEARD.

BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, THOSE ARE THE TWO THINGS THAT ARE GUARANTEED, AND THAT IS WHAT THIS C OURT , I BELIEVE , ADDRESSED.

YOU JUST SAID BEFORE THAT IT REQUIRES NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD . IF THAT IS WHAT IS REQUIRED , WOULD YOU CON CEDE WH ICH YOU CONC EDE , WHERE WAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD? NOT THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR. THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.

BUT , YOUR HONOR , THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IS , A GAIN, REVOLVES AROUND WHAT THEIR INTEREST IS IN THE IN REM ACTION IS IN THE PROPERTY. AND THEN THAT IS WHY IN OUR BRIEF W E ANALOGIZE ED INFORMATION INTERVENTION, WHERE THE COURT COMES IN AND SAYS I HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY AND THIS IS MY INTEREST AND THE COURT MAKES THAT DETERMINATIO N.

IS THERE ANY OTHER STATUTE THAT YOU CAN CITE TO US OR ANY OTHER PROCEEDING IN FLORIDA LAW, WHERE SOMEONE HAS THE RIGHT TO NOTICE AFTER PROCEEDING BUT NO RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDING ?

NO. I DON'T , YOUR HONOR.

S O THIS WOULD BE UNIQUE IN FLOR IDA LAW .

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT IS UNI QUE, IF WE LOOK AT IT

IF T HERE IS NO OTHERFLORIDA LAW , THEN IT IS UNIQUE.

IN TERM S OF STANDING. STANDING IS A THRESHOLD ISSUE , YOUR HO NOR.

HOW ABOUT THE FEDERAL FORFEITURE LAW ?

THE F E DERAL FORFEITURE L AW S UPHOLD THAT A PERSON HAS TO SHOW A S WORN INTEREST, AND IT IS USUALLY DONE BY AFFIDAVIT. THERE IS A PROVISION IN SOME OF THE FED ERAL FORFEITURE LAWS. THERE IS THE CRIMINAL AND THE CI VIL FORFEITURE , BUTTHEY CAN APPEAR BY AFFIDAVIT , WHICH SAYS THIS IS MY LEGAL INTEREST IN THIS PROPERTY THAT IS BEING SEIZED AND FORFEITED , AND , A GAIN , I JUST WOULD REM IND THE COURT THAT WHAT IS IMPORTANT HERE IS THAT THIS IS AN IN REM ACTION AND IT IS A GAINST THE PROPERTY, AND IT IS NOT LIKE TIGHTSED PROPERTY.IT IS NOT LIKE WHAT OCCURRED IN REAL PROPERTY.

SO DO YOU THINK, THEN , IS THE REASON FOR THE STATUTE IN REFERRING IN THE PROBABLE CAUSE PO RTION OF PERSONS ENTITLED TO NOTICE , WHER EAS THE FORFEITURE PORTION OF IT , REFERS TO CLAIMANTS, AND THOSE TWO TE RMS HAVING DIFFERENT ME ANINGS ?

BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE DUE PROCESS CONCERN THAT THE PORTION THAT SAYS A PERSON ENTITLED TO NOTICE AND THAT THERE IS A RIGHT TO A HEARING , DE ALS WITH JUST THAT. W ITH NOTICE , AND THEOPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.

BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOUR ARGUMENT CONVERTS THE PERSON ENTITLED TO NOTICE , INTO HAVING TO PROVE THAT HEIS A CLAIMANT AT THIS STAGE , WHERE THERE IS NOTHING IN THE STATUTE THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO BE A CLAIMANT IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT PROBABLE CAUSE PROCEEDING .

A GAIN, THE STATUTE , OUR ARGUMENT ADDRES SES THE DUE PROCESS CONCER NS OF NOTICE AND THAT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND AN ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING CAN BE REQUESTED.

BUT LET'S , YOU KNOW , LOOKING OVER THE STATUTEAGAIN, IT IS NOT ONLY THAT THERE IS A DISTINCTION MADE BETWEEN A CLAIMANT AND A PERSON ENTITLED TO NOTICE UNDER THE DEFINITIONAL SECTION, BUT , THEN WHEN YOU GO TO 703.2-A , IT SAYS SPECIFICALLY, THAT PERSONAL PROPERTY MAY BE SEIZED ATTHE TI ME OF THE VIOLATION OR SUBSEQUENT TO THE VIOLATION, IF THE PERSON ENTITLED TO NOTICE, WHICH WE AG REE IS A PERSON IN POSSESSION , IS NOTIFIED AT THE TIME OF SEIZURE OR BY CERTIFIED MAIL , RETURN RECE IPT REQUESTED , THAT THERE IS A RIGHT T O AN ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING AFTER THE SEIZURE , TO DETERM INE WHETHER PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS T O BELIEVE THAT S UCH PROPERTY HAS BEEN OR IS BEING USED IN VIOLATION OF THE FLO RIDA CONTRABAND ACT. I SEE N O WHERE IN THAT WH OLE SECTION, THAT THERE IS ANY REQUIREMENT , AND I THINK THIS IS WHAT YOU G O BACK TO , AT LE AST IT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT BUTTHE CLEAR STATUT ORY INTENT IS THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE ADVERSARIAL HEARING IS TO ESTABLISH WHETHER THE STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO SEIZE , WHETHER THE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY HAS THE RIGHT TO SEIZE THE PROPERTY, AND NOWHERE DOES IT SAY THAT THE ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING IS TO ESTABLISH IF THE PERSON IS A CLAIMANT , SO EVEN IF WE THOU GHT, AND WE WERE IN OUR RULE-MAKING POSITION , THAT WE THOUGHTTHAT WOULD BE A GOOD THIN G TO DO , I THINK WE WOULD BE IN VI OLATION OF WHAT THE STATUTE REQUIRES , AND SO G OING BACK T O STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION , WHERE DO YOU READ WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN ARGUING DURING YOUR 20 MINUTES HERE , THAT IT APPEARS THAT THERE HAS TO BE SOME ADDITIONAL ESTABLISHMENT , BEFORE THEY CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING?

I THINK THAT IS IN THE DEFINITIONAL PORTION, YOURHONOR. CLEARLY WHY WOULD THEY ESTABLISH TWO TY PES O F PERSONS? A PERSON ENTITLED TO NOTICE AND A CLAIMANT. A PERSON ENTITLED TO NOTICE IN ORDER T O SATISFY DUE PROCESS, IS GIVEN NOTICE , AND IS TOLD THAT THERE IS OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR AND TO CONTEST THE FORFEITURE , BUT BEING , A G AIN , A N IN REM ACTION, THE COURT HAS TO HAVE THE REQUIREMENT OF STANDING, TO SHOW THAT THE PERSON IN FRONT OF THE COURTIS THE ONE THAT CAN CONT EST! I WOULD ASK , IF THERE ARE N O OTHER QUESTIONS, I WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT AFFIRM THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL . THEIR APPROACH IS CONSISTENT WITH DUE PROCESS, WITH THESTATUTE , AND WITH THE BALANCING TEST THAT THIS COURT SET OUT IN REAL PROPERTY. THANK YOU.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU .

NOWHERE IN THE STATUTE , IS MORE REQUIRED THAN MERE POSSESSION IN ORDER TO OBTAIN AN ADVERSARIAL - -

MR . MORRIS, IT SEEMS WHAT COUNSEL IS SAYING I S READING BETWEEN THE LINE S THAT IT IS IN REM. IT SEEMS MORE THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH A THING AND WE REA LLY HAVE NO I DEA WHO HAS REAL INTEREST IN THIS THING , AND WE HAVE TO GIVE SOMEBODY NOTICE, SO WE GIVE THE PERSON WHO HAD POSSESSION OFIT NOTICE, BUT THE WHOLE STATUTE SEEMS TO BE SAYING , CONTEMPLATES THAT YOU STILL NEED TO HAVE AN INTEREST IN IT NOT JUST BE IN POSSESSION OF IT , TO GET INVOLVED IN THE DOGFIGHT ABOUT IT.

NOT THIS STATUTE.

I AM SAYING THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT HE IS SAYING.

AGAIN, I THINK WHAT THE DEPARTMENT IS DO ING IS REWRITING THE STATUTE , AND I CAN'T SAY IT ANY BETTER THAN THE FO URTH DISTRICT SAID IT IN BARUCH, AND THAT IS THAT THE LEGISLATURE'S 1992 AMENDMENTS TO THE FORFEITURE ACT, ADDED TO THE DEF INITION OF CLAIMANTS , PERSONSENTITLED TO NOTICE , ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING AND FORFEITURE PROCEEDING. THESE DEFI NITIONS SHAPED THE STANDING REQUIREMENTS FORTHE TWO STAGES OF A FORFEITURE PROCEEDING,WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PARAMETERS OF DUE PROCESS , AND RIGHT ON THE MONEY, THEY SAID IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH , THE RECIPIENT OF A STATUTORY NOTICE, IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST AN ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING , SUBJECT TO THE LATER REQUIREMENT THAT, AT THE HEARING , HE DEMONSTRATES THAT HE COMESWITHIN THE STATUTORY DEF INITION OF A PERSON ENTITLED TO NOTICE. IT IS CONCEDED HERE BY THE DEPARTMENT, THAT MR . VELEZ COMES WITHIN THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF A PERSON ENTITLED TO NOTICE , EVEN UNDER THE FEDER AL FORFEITURE ACT. MR. VE LEZ HAS ARTICLE I II STANDING, BECAUS E HE WAS AT THE VERY LEAST , IN CON INSTRUCT I HAVE POSSESSION OF THE SUIT CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE SUITCASE THAT HE SAID WAS H IS.

DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE STATUTORY STANDING TO BEC OME INVOLVED IN THE CA SE?

UNDER THE FACTS OF T HIS CASE, NO, WE HAVE ONLY ONEPERSON WHO HAS FILED ANY CLAIM, WHO HAS REQUESTED AN ADVERSARIAL PRELIMINARY HEARING AND WHO HAS MA DE AN APPEARANCE, ONLY ONE PERSON , SO W E DON' T HAVE THAT DISPUTE HERE. A THE PERSON WITH NOTICE , THAT IS THE END OF THE BALLGAME WITH REGA RD TO WHO CAN PARTICIPATE, UN LESS SOMEONE COMES IN , IF SOMEONECOMES IN AND SAYS THAT IS MY PROPERTY.

WELL , THE PERSON ENTITLED TO NOTICE ME ANS ANY OWNER , ENTITY, BONA FIDE LIEN HOLDER OR PERSON IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY , SO ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE

IT DOES PU LL IN THAT CONCEPT.

YES. IT DOES PULL IN ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE BY DEFINITION , AND MR . VELEZ IS CONCEDEEDLY ONE OF THEM. THANK YOU .

CHIEF JUSTICE: THE COURT WILL BE IN RECESS UN TIL 3:30 THIS AFTERNOON, WHEN IT WILL BE IN CEREMONIAL SE SSION FOR O UR PRO BONO CERE MONY.

MARSHAL: PLEASE RISE.