City of Miami v. Miller
| Decision Date | 29 October 1941 |
| Citation | 148 Fla. 349,4 So.2d 369 |
| Parties | CITY OF MIAMI v. MILLER. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 13, 1941.
J. W. Watson, Jr. and Wm. W. Charles, both of Miami, for petitioner.
Bart A. Riley and Stanley S. Phillips, both of Miami, for respondent.
Tyrus A. Norwood and Miller Walton, both of Miami, as Amicus Curiae.
In January, 1941 police officers of the City of Miami entered Slapsie Maxie's Frolic Club, an amusement place of Sam Miller they arrested Miller and forth-eight of his employees. They took approximately $27,000 from the cashier's cage and various gambling devices but permitted several hundred patrons to leave the premises unmolested.
Miller and forty-seven of the employees were tried and convicted in the municipal Court of Miami for promoting and conducting games of chance contrary to Section 7669, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Ordinance 319 of the City of Miami. At the time of the arrest and seizure, $9,273.95 of the money seized was on the gambling implements and $17,638.70 was in the cashier's cage. The Municipal Court adjudged the former sum forfeited to the City and the latter to be returned to Miller. On appeal to the Circuit Court, the judgment of the Municipal Court was reversed in so far as it adjudged a forfeiture of $9,273.95 to the City. The judgment of the Circuit Court is here for review on certiorari.
The question for determination is whether or not the Municipal Court of the City of Miami was authorized to adjudicate a forfeiture to the City of the $9,273.95 taken from the gambling implements and used as evidence against the defendant.
Forfeitures are considered harsh exactions and as a general rule are not favored. They will not be permitted by a municipality or other governmental entity unless the power to do so is conferred by express authority from the legislature. The power to declare a forfeiture is considered a field unto itself and will not be allowed as an incident to other penalties. The legislature must confer the power in terms and the City must provide for it pursuant to the power conferred.
The City relies on Section 3(y), Section 3(a a) Section 84 of its Charter Ordinance 319 of the City, Section 7669, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and the decision of this Court in State ex rel. Padgett et al. v. Circuit Court of Eleventh Judicial Circuit et al., 110 Fla. 46, 148 So. 522, to support its power to declare the forfeiture.
In the latter decision, we held that statutes requiring a forfeiture of money received through schemes of chance or gambling devices contemplate the adjudication thereof in a court of competent jurisdiction and that on competent evidence of the right of declare the forfeit. Under Section 7665, Compiled General Laws of 1927, money found in the mechanism of gambling devices may be regarded as having been forfeited and disposed of as other gambling paraphernalia.
Section 7665, supra, also provides that when a sheriff or any police officer captures gambling instruments or other gambling devices in any room, house, or booth, he may seize the same and hold them subject to the discretion of the Court to be used as evidence and afterwards to be destroyed as the law directs.
We have examined the provisions of the City Charter and Ordinance relied on and find no implied or express authority for the Municipal Court to declare a forfeiture of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property
...statutes. See, e.g., General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. State, 152 Fla. 297, 302, 11 So.2d 482, 484 (1943); City of Miami v. Miller, 148 Fla. 349, 350, 4 So.2d 369, 370 (1941). Strict construction, however, may clash with the traditional judicial policy that all doubts as to the validity of......
-
Mulligan v. City of Hollywood, 4D02-3626.
...Fla. State Board of Architecture v. Seymour, 62 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1952); Boyle v. State, 47 So.2d 693 (Fla. 1950); City of Miami v. Miller, 148 Fla. 349, 4 So.2d 369 (1941). Strict construction in this context suggests that in doubtful cases the courts will construe ambiguous statutes, or even ......
-
City of Duluth v. Cerveny
...Iowa 378, 7 N.W. 623. Because of differences in charter provisions, however, such cases can be distinguished. In City of Miami v. Miller, 148 Fla. 349, 351, 4 So.2d 369, 370, relied upon by defendant, the court conceded the possibility of forfeiture by implied authority, in this "We have ex......
-
Chittim v. Belle Fourche Bentonite Products Company
... ... Co. v ... South Mercur Min. Co. 128 P. 2d 269; In re Manse ... Spring, 108 P. 2d 311; City of Miami v. Miller, 4 So.2d ... Attitude ... of Courts on the subject of forfeiture is ... ...