HomeMy WebLinkAbout0611where the marijuana "drop" by the DC-3 was to be made. There was
no discussion of the conspiracy in the Cadillac; no contraband was
in the Cadillac, and no money exchanged hands in the Cadillac.. Mr.
Lippner was aware of what was going on concerning the conspiracy
to import the marijuana at both meetings.~
The legal question involved is whether the Corvette and
Seville were used to facilitate the transportation, purchase, sale,
barter, exchange or giving away of any contraband article as pro-
vided in Florida Statute 943.42(3), 1979. Subparagraph (1) of this
statute makes it unlawful to transport.or convey any contraband in
any motor vehicle, and subparagraph (2) makes it unlawful to conceal
or possess any contraband in or upon any motor veh-icle. Obviously,
in this case, we are not involved with subparagraphs (1) and (2) of
Florida Statute 943.42. Also, we are not involved with the 1980
amendment to this ~tatute.
The State contends that in Griffis v State, 356 So2d 297
(S.Ct. 1978), you must show that the vehicle involved was used to
facilitate drug transportation. That possession of drugs alone is
not trafficking to come under the statute. That Florida law is
patterned after Federal law, and in particular, they are relying
on Mosley v State Ex Rel Broward Cty., 363 So2d 172 (4 DCA 1978),
in which the term "facilitate" was defined as the act used to
assist commission of the crime or make it easier for dope deaZing
or easier to conceal or make it easier or convenient to transport
drugs. That Mosley v State quoted with approval United States v
.
One 1950 Buick Sedan, 231 F2d 219 (1956).
Respondent contends that the State is trying to enlarge
the present statute by including conspiracy, and since no contra-
band was involved, there should be no forfeiture. Respondent also
relies on Griffis, supra, and riosely, supra. Respondent further
relies on NichoZs v State, 356 So2d 933 (2 DCA 1978); Brown v State,
357 So2d 472 (1 DCA 1978); In Re: Forfeiture of 1979 Ford Truck,
389 So2d 310 (2 DCA 1978), and~ One 1978 Lincoln Versailles,
So2d (2 DCA Case No. 80-67, Opinion filed October 22, 1980).
-2-
~~'~ 347 ~~~E 6~
~
F
~~i~ssxi~'=v~ k+'° ° . ~,..~*r4 t ', - t
s'
,.
~
' .~ <'~' _
~5 ?~"~ ~ J