Romelia Rodriguez v. Gregory Tony, as Sheriff of Broward County

D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEAL O F T HE STATE OF F LORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
ROMELIA RODRIGUEZ,
Appellant,
v.
GREGORY TONY, AS SHERIFF OF BROWARD COUNTY,
Appellee.
No. 4D2024-1468
[November 12, 2025]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Shari Africk-Olefson, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE23-
001847.
Donna 	Greenspan 	Solomon 	of 	Solomon 	Appeals, 	Mediation 	&
Arbitration, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Christian Tsoubanos, Senior Assistant General Counsel, and Colin
Hayes, 	Assistant 	General 	Counsel, 	Broward 	Sheriff’s 	Office, 	Fort
Lauderdale, for appellee.
GROSS, J.
Romelia 	Rodriguez 	appeals 	a 	final 	summary 	judgment 	forfeiting
$56,000 	of 	United 	States 	currency 	seized 	from 	her 	Samsonite 	roller
suitcase at a traveler checkpoint in the Fort Lauderdale International
Airport. 	We reverse the summary judgment because the trial court based
its ruling on an erroneous burden of proof.
In February 2023, Gregory Tony, as Sheriff of Broward County (“BSO”),
filed a verified complaint for forfeiture pursuant to the Florida Contraband
Forfeiture Act, §§ 932.701–932.7062, Fla. Stat. (the “Forfeiture Act”),
related to the discovery and seizure of $56,000 in United States currency
by the Broward County Narcotic Interdiction Task Force.1
1 The Narcotic Interdiction Task Force is a multi-agency task force administered
by BSO.

2
In November 2023, BSO moved for summary judgment. Regarding the
burden of proof, BSO argued:
In a forfeiture proceeding, the governmental entity need
only show probable cause that the res was illicitly used
within 	the 	meaning 	of 	the 	Forfeiture 	Statute. 	In 	re
Forfeiture of $48,900, [432 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)].
The 	burden 	then 	shifts 	to 	the 	claimant 	to 	rebut 	the
probable 	cause 	demonstrated 	by 	the 	government 	with
competent substantial evidence. In re Forfeiture of $48,900,
supra, United States v. $364,960.00 in U.S. Currency, 661 F.2d
319 	(5th 	Cir. 	1981). 	Failure 	to 	rebut 	the 	government’s
probable cause results in the forfeiture of the property, and
the court may forfeit the property based upon an unrefuted
probable cause finding.
* * *
It is apparent that a claimant contesting forfeiture may
defend in either one or both of two ways: by refuting the
government’s 	showing 	of 	probable 	cause; 	and/or 	by
producing 	affirmative 	evidence 	and 	show[ing], 	by 	a
preponderance of the evidence, that the property subject
to forfeiture was not involved in illegal activity.
(Emphasis supplied).
The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and entered
a final order of forfeiture. 	The court found that the motion for summary
judgment was “facially sufficient, reflect[ed] all elements [required] to
support a forfeiture action and [wa]s supported by record evidence.” 	This
appeal ensued.
Both BSO and the trial court misapprehended the government’s burden
in a forfeiture trial, which requires the government to prove (1) beyond a
reasonable doubt that contraband was being used in violation of the
Forfeiture Act and (2) by a preponderance of the evidence that the owner
of the property subject to seizure knew or should have known that such
property was being employed, or was likely to be employed, in criminal
activity. 	See §§ 932.704(8) & 932.703(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023).2
2 The current version of section 932.704 became effective January 1, 2023.

3
The Florida legislature made “substantial changes” to the Forfeiture Act
in 2016. 	See Fla. S. Comm. on Fiscal Policy (2016) Staff Analysis 1 (Mar.
2, 2016). 	One of the amendments was to section 932.704(8), which
provides:
Upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the contraband
article was being used in violation of the Florida Contraband
Forfeiture 	Act, 	the 	court 	shall 	order 	the 	seized 	property
forfeited to the seizing law enforcement agency.
Ch. 2016-179, § 3, Laws of Fla. (Emphasis supplied).
In addition, section 932.703(7)(a) states:
Property may not be forfeited under the Florida Contraband
Forfeiture Act unless the seizing agency establishes by a
preponderance of the evidence that the owner either knew, or
should 	have 	known 	after 	a 	reasonable 	inquiry, 	that 	the
property was being employed or was likely to be employed in
criminal activity.
§ 932.703(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016).
Consistent with these two statutes, we recognized in Zarcadoolas v.
Tony, 353 So. 3d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), that a forfeiture proceeding
consists of two stages:
(1) the probable cause stage, where the seizing agency must
establish probable cause to believe that the property at issue
has been used in violation of the Forfeiture Act in order to
justify the continued seizure of the property; and (2) the
forfeiture trial, where the seizing agency must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the property has been used in violation
of the Forfeiture Act, and must prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that the owner knew or should have known that
the property was being used in criminal activity, in order to
obtain title to the property.
Id. at 646–47.
The 	trial 	court 	failed 	to 	take 	into 	consideration 	the 	government’s
burden of proof in a forfeiture case and allowed BSO to meet its burden
merely by showing probable cause that the cash was illicitly used within
the meaning of the forfeiture statute.

4
BSO and the trial court relied on outdated law. 	As we explained in
Sanchez v. City of West Palm Beach, 149 So. 3d 92, 95–96 (Fla. 4th DCA
2014):
While now codified by sections 932.703 and 932.704, Florida
Statutes 	(2013), 	this 	two-step 	approach 	to 	forfeiture
proceedings has its origins in Department of Law Enforcement
v. Real Property, 588 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1991), a case concerning
a due process challenge to the Act’s then-current procedure.
Prior 	to 	the 	Real 	Property 	decision, 	the 	above-mentioned
seizure and forfeiture stages were truncated into a single
proceeding, initiated either by the State within 90 days of the
seizure or by the claimant in an action to recover the property.
§ 932.703(1), 932.704(1), Fla. Stat. (1991). At the proceeding,
the “governmental entity seeking forfeiture b[ore] the initial
burden of going forward” by demonstrating “probable cause
that the res subject to forfeiture was illicitly used within the
meaning of the forfeiture statute.” 	In re Approximately Forty–
Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($48,900.00) in U.S.
Currency, 432 So. 2d 1382, 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). If this
hurdle was cleared, the burden then shifted to the claimant
“to rebut the probable cause showing, or by a preponderance
of the evidence, to establish that the forfeiture statute was not
violated or that there is an affirmative defense which entitles
the appellant to repossession of the item.” Lobo v. Metro–Dade
Police Dep’t, 505 So. 2d 621, 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Because BSO and the trial court misunderstood BSO’s burden of proof
at a forfeiture trial, and summary judgment was granted without BSO
carrying its burden of proof under current law, we reverse the summary
final judgment of forfeiture and remand to the circuit court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion. As to the other issues raised on
appeal, we affirm without further comment.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
S HEPHERD and S HAW , JJ., concur.
* 	* 	*
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.