City of Hollywood v. Mulligan
934 So. 2d 1238 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act (FCFA), which governs the forfeiture of property used in the commission of felonies, does not preempt municipalities from exercising their home rule powers to enact ordinances authorizing the temporary seizure and impoundment of vehicles used in the commission of misdemeanors.
Facts:
- Colon Bernard Mulligan was arrested by City of Hollywood police for soliciting a prostitute, a misdemeanor offense.
- At the time of the solicitation, Mulligan was in his personal vehicle.
- Pursuant to a City of Hollywood ordinance, police seized and impounded Mulligan's vehicle because it was used to facilitate the commission of the misdemeanor.
- Mulligan appeared before a special master who found probable cause supported the seizure.
- To retrieve his vehicle, Mulligan was required to and did pay a $500 administrative fine.
- The ordinance at issue explicitly states it does not apply when a vehicle is subject to seizure under the state's Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.
Procedural Posture:
- Colon Bernard Mulligan brought suit against the City of Hollywood in a state trial court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the city's vehicle impoundment ordinance is invalid.
- The action was certified as a class action with Mulligan as the class representative.
- After cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted the City of Hollywood's motion.
- Mulligan, as the appellant, appealed to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the ordinance was preempted by the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal then certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act (FCFA) preempt a municipality from adopting an ordinance that authorizes the seizure and impoundment of vehicles used in the commission of certain misdemeanor offenses?
Opinions:
Majority - Bell, J.
No, the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act (FCFA) does not preempt a municipal ordinance authorizing vehicle impoundment for misdemeanors. The FCFA applies only to property used in the commission of felonies, as its definition of 'contraband' is explicitly tied to felony offenses. Because the state legislature did not use clear and express language to occupy the entire field of property seizure, municipalities retain their home rule power to legislate in areas not covered by the state act, such as misdemeanors. The City's ordinance and the FCFA can coexist because they regulate different conduct (misdemeanors vs. felonies) and provide different remedies (temporary impoundment vs. permanent forfeiture). Furthermore, the ordinance is properly characterized as an impoundment scheme, which is a temporary deprivation of property, rather than a forfeiture scheme, which permanently divests an owner of title.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of municipal home rule power in Florida, reinforcing the principle that state preemption of a legislative field requires express and unambiguous legislative intent. By distinguishing between the FCFA's application to felonies and a local ordinance's focus on misdemeanors, the court allows local governments to create supplemental civil enforcement mechanisms for lower-level crimes. This ruling validates the authority of cities to deter offenses like prostitution and minor drug crimes through vehicle impoundment, creating a parallel regulatory scheme that operates independently of the state's felony forfeiture laws.
