Can a Florida city use police contraband forfeiture trust funds to build or renovate a police station?

Plain-English summary

The attorney for the Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea asked whether the town commission acted properly when it approved spending law enforcement trust funds (money from contraband forfeitures) to renovate a building into a police station, complete with a holding cell, sally port, interview room, and video equipment. A commissioner had questioned the legality after the fact. Because the money had already been spent, Assistant Attorney General Joslyn Wilson presumed the validity of the completed action and offered only informal comments.

On the substance, the comments explained that under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, a municipality's forfeiture proceeds go into a special law enforcement trust fund and may be used only for the purposes the statute lists (such as school resource officers, crime prevention, drug abuse education, and similar law enforcement purposes) and may not be used to meet the agency's "normal operating expenses." Drawing on earlier opinions, the office observed that providing a facility for a department's routine, day-to-day functions generally looks like a normal operating expense rather than an extraordinary program, so it would not be an appropriate use of these funds. The opinion stressed that the ultimate decision about whether a given expenditure is appropriate belongs to the city commission, not the police chief, even though the chief must certify and request the spending.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2010. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Why did the office give "informal comments" instead of a formal opinion?
A: The money had already been spent and the action taken. The office presumes the validity of action a governmental body has already completed, so it offered general informal comments rather than ruling on the legality of a finished transaction.

Q: What can a city spend law enforcement trust fund money on?
A: The opinion pointed to section 932.7055(5)(a), which limits the proceeds to school resource officers, crime prevention, safe neighborhood, drug abuse education and prevention, and "other law enforcement purposes" like complex investigations, extra equipment, defibrillators, and grant matching. The same provision says the money "may not be used to meet normal operating expenses."

Q: Why would a police building count as a "normal operating expense"?
A: The office had concluded in earlier opinions that providing a facility to carry out a department's routine functions, such as a satellite community police office, an evidence-storage building, or a stable for a mounted unit, serves the agency's ongoing day-to-day operating needs rather than an extraordinary program, so trust funds could not be used for it.

Q: Who decides whether a particular expenditure is allowed?
A: The opinion said the city commission makes that decision. The chief of police must request the spending and certify compliance, but that certification does not relieve the governing body of its own responsibility to ensure the expenditure is appropriate.

Background and statutory framework

Sections 932.701-932.706, Florida Statutes, the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, let a law enforcement agency seize and forfeit property used in violation of the Act. When a municipality sells forfeited property, the proceeds (after liens and costs) go into a special law enforcement trust fund under section 932.7055(5)(a), which both lists the permitted uses and bars use of the money for the agency's normal operating expenses. Section 932.7055(5)(b) requires the police chief to request an appropriation and certify that it complies with the statute, and the governing body must make the appropriation to the department.

The opinion synthesized a line of earlier AG opinions reading the "normal operating expenses" bar broadly: AGO 02-80 (satellite community police office), AGO 86-48 (evidence-storage building for a sheriff), and AGO 97-31 (stable for a mounted patrol unit) all concluded that providing a facility to carry out routine law enforcement functions was a normal operating expense outside the permitted uses. Applying that reasoning here, the office indicated that converting a building into a working police facility would generally not be an appropriate use of forfeiture trust funds, while reiterating that the appropriateness determination is ultimately the city commission's to make.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• §§ 932.701-932.706, Fla. Stat. (Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act)
• § 932.703(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (seizure and forfeiture)
• § 932.7055(1)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat. (disposition of forfeited property)
• § 932.7055(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (permitted uses; bar on normal operating expenses)
• § 932.7055(5)(b), Fla. Stat. (police chief request and certification)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/contraband-forfeiture-use-of-trust-funds
• Original PDF: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/8195

Original opinion text

Ms. Susan L. Trevarthen

Attorney, Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea

200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1900

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Dear Ms. Trevarthen:

You ask whether the Town Commission for the Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea acted properly in approving the expenditure of law enforcement trust funds to renovate a property for use as a police station.

According to your letter, the Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea purchased property adjacent to the town hall for the purpose of converting it into a public safety complex for fire, ambulance and police use. You state that extensive renovations were necessary in order to convert the property into a proper police facility which included providing a holding cell, sally port, interview room and specialized video equipment. The police chief requested that law enforcement trust funds be used for such renovations and the use of such funds was approved by the town commission in 2009. You further state that the conversion of the property for use as a police facility is now complete and that the funds from the law enforcement trust fund have been expended. A member of the town commission, however, has questioned the legality of such an expenditure and the town commission, therefore, asks whether its actions were proper.

This office must presume the validity of action that has already been taken by a governmental body. However, in an effort to be of some assistance, the following informal comments are offered.

Sections 932.701-932.706, Florida Statutes, the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act (Act), makes it unlawful to transport, conceal, or possess contraband articles or to acquire real or personal property with contraband proceeds. Section 932.703(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that any contraband article, vessel, motor vehicle, aircraft, personal property, or real property used in violation of the Act's terms may be seized and shall be forfeited pursuant to its provisions. The Act authorizes a law enforcement agency to retain the property for the agency's use, sell the property, or salvage or transfer property acquired through a forfeiture to any public or nonprofit organization.[1]

If the seized property is sold and the seizing agency is a municipality, the proceeds, after payment of certain liens and costs, shall be deposited in a special law enforcement trust fund established by the governing body of the municipality.[2] Section 932.7055(5)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that the proceeds from a forfeiture and the interest earned therefrom be used only

"for school resource officer, crime prevention, safe neighborhood, drug abuse education and prevention programs, or for other law enforcement purposes, which include defraying the cost of protracted or complex investigations, providing additional equipment or expertise, purchasing automated external defibrillators for use in law enforcement vehicles, and providing matching funds to obtain federal grants. The proceeds and interest may not be used to meet normal operating expenses of the law enforcement agency."

These funds may be expended upon the request of the chief of police to the governing body of the municipality and must be accompanied by a written certification that the request is in compliance with the provisions of section 932.7055(5).[3] An appropriation of contraband forfeiture trust funds must be made by the governing body of the municipality to the police department.[4]

Given the governing body's inability to expend such funds in the absence of a request, this office has recognized that some deference should be given to a sheriff's or police chief's request.[5] However, while the police chief certifies that the request is in compliance with the statute, ultimately the decision of whether the expenditure is for an appropriate law enforcement purpose must be made by the city commission.[6] The fact that the chief of police has certified a request to the governing body does not relieve the governing body of its responsibility under the statute to ensure that the expenditure is appropriate.

In light of the express statutory prohibition against using contraband forfeiture trust funds as a source of revenue to meet the normal operating needs of a law enforcement agency, this office has repeatedly stated that contraband funds should be used only for the expressly specified purposes or for other extraordinary programs and purposes, beyond what is usual, normal, regular, or established.[7]

Thus, for example, this office in Attorney General 02-80 stated that the development and construction of a satellite community police office would appear to meet the "normal operating needs of the law enforcement agency" and therefore would not constitute an appropriate expenditure for contraband forfeiture trust funds. As discussed in that opinion, the development and construction of the community police office itself would appear to facilitate the normal day-to-day operations of the police department. Thus, construction of such a facility would appear to satisfy the police department's normal operating need for a site of day-to-day operations, but would not be an appropriate subject for the expenditure of contraband forfeiture trust funds.

In reaching this conclusion, this office relied in part on Attorney General Opinion 86-48 in which the Board of County Commissioners of Charlotte County asked whether it could expend contraband forfeiture funds to construct a building to be used by the sheriff for evidence storage. As discussed in Attorney General Opinion 86-48, space for the storing of evidence in criminal cases would appear to be one of the normal operating needs of the sheriff in carrying out the statutory duties of that office and represented a continuing, ongoing or regular duty or function of that office. Thus, the opinion concluded that the storage of property as evidence in criminal cases did not constitute a purpose expressly provided for in the Act, nor did such an activity represent an extraordinary program or purpose beyond what is usual, normal, regular, or established.

Similarly, in Attorney General Opinion 97-31, this office concluded that a city was not authorized to use contraband forfeiture funds to build and maintain a stable for horses to be used for a mounted police patrol unit. As discussed in that opinion, the provision of law enforcement services is the usual, normal, regular, or established duty of a city police department and the provision of a facility to carry out such services would appear to be normal operating expense for which law enforcement trust funds may not be used.

Thus, the above opinions conclude that the provision of a facility to carry out the routine law enforcement functions of a police department would appear to constitute a normal operating expense. As noted above, however, the decision of whether the expenditure is for an appropriate expenditure for the use of law enforcement trust funds is one that must be made by the governing body of the city.

I hope that the above informal comments may be of some assistance.

Sincerely,

Joslyn Wilson

Assistant Attorney General

JW/tsh

[1] Section 932.7055(1)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat.

[2] See s. 932.7055(5)(a), Fla. Stat.

[3] Section 932.7055(5)(b), Fla. Stat.

[4] Id.

[5] Ops. Att'y Gen. Fla. 03-39 (2003) and 96-62 (1996).

[6] See, e.g., Ops. Att'y. Gen. Fla. 05-47 (2005); 02-35 (2002); 01-48 (2001); 98-32 (1998); 96-62 (1996).

[7] See, e.g., Ops. Att'y Gen. Fla. 05-47 (2005), 03-39 (2003), and 02-80 (2002). And see Op. Att'y. Gen. Fla. 83-09 (1983), stating that "[i]t . . . appears that the legislative intent of s. 932.704, F.S., is that these trust funds should be used only for the expressly specified purposes or for other extraordinary programs and purposes, beyond what is usual, normal, regular or established."