Pubsco, Inc. v. State Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re Forfeiture of One 1983 Nissan 280 ZX Automobile, VIN JN1HZ06S2CX429432 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
- In re Forfeiture of 1989 Chrysler Lebaron VIN 1C3XJ45K7K266417 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
- In re Forfeiture of 1987 Volkswagon Fox 2-Door (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In this appeal, the appellant challenges the forfeiture of a Rolls Royce titled to Pubsco, Inc. and operated by James A. Pell, the principal officer of the company. Pell struck and injured a pedestrian. Without rendering aid or assistance, Pell left the scene of the accident. The state petitioned for forfeiture of the vehicle arguing that it was used as an instrumentality in the commission of, or aiding or abetting in the commission of, the felony offense of leaving the scene of an accident. The trial court entered a final judgment of forfeiture finding that the vehicle was a contraband article employed as an instrumentality.
We disagree with the trial court’s ruling. Recently, the supreme court in City of Edgewood v. Williams, 556 So.2d 1390 (Fla. 1990), held that a vehicle is not subject to forfeiture where it is “only remotely incidental” to the underlying crime. The use of the Rolls Royce here was not closely related to the commission of the criminal act. How Pell left the scene had nothing to do with the offense.
Accordingly, we find that the vehicle cannot be deemed to be an instrumentality in
REVERSED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.