¶1Affirmed. See United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435,109 S.Ct. 1892,104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989). However, this decision does not preclude our future consideration of other factual circumstances, notwithstanding State v. Moretti, 681 So.2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), whether under the seven factors recited in United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 104 S.Ct. 1099, 79 L.Ed.2d 361 (1984), a forfeiture pursuant to section 932.703, Florida Statutes (1995), could constitute double jeopardy. United States v. Ursery, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996), was decided under the federal statute and did not discuss the above factors.
682 So. 2d 1137
Chillington v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided October 9, 1996
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1996-10-09
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 2005
7 state decisions
Relies on United States v. Halper · United States v. Ursery · United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1996-10-09
View the full empirical analysis of this case →