Overview
Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a Broward County circuit court’s order in the case of Bradley Dorman, a man convicted of first-degree murder who sought the return of money and other items that were seized from him at the time of his arrest. The property had been taken for use as evidence. After the case concluded, Dorman asked for it back—but the trial court denied the request without holding a hearing or pointing to any record evidence showing why the property should be kept. The State conceded the error, and the Fourth DCA reversed and sent the case back for further proceedings.
What Happened in Court
The trial court denied Dorman’s motion by simply adopting the State’s written response. It did not attach any records showing that the property could not be returned, and it did not hold a hearing. Under Florida law, that is not enough. Appellate courts review the summary denial of a motion for return of property using a fresh, de novo standard—no deference to the trial court—and the rule is clear: if the record does not conclusively show that the person is not entitled to their property back, the trial court must either hold an evidentiary hearing or attach records that resolve the question. Neither happened here, so the Fourth DCA reversed.
Why This Matters
This case is a reminder that a criminal conviction does not automatically mean the government gets to keep everything it seized. When law enforcement takes cash, a vehicle, a phone, or any other property in connection with an arrest, that property may still need to be returned after the criminal case is over—especially if it is no longer needed as evidence. The right to seek the return of that property survives a conviction, but it usually requires someone to actively pursue it. Courts will not simply give property back on their own, and as this case shows, even a denial by the trial court can be challenged if the proper procedure was not followed.
The practical value here extends to families as well. If a loved one has been convicted and passed away, or is incarcerated, the estate or family members may have standing to seek return of property that was seized years earlier.
Read the full opinion: Dorman v. State, Fourth District Court of Appeal — search the 4DCA opinions archive for the Dorman return-of-property decision
How Sanchez Vaughn Trial Lawyers Can Help
If law enforcement seized your property—cash, electronics, a vehicle, or anything else—in connection with a criminal case, you may be entitled to get it back even after the case has concluded. Sanchez Vaughn Trial Lawyers helps clients and their families in the Tampa Bay area pursue the return of seized property, including navigating the post-conviction proceedings courts require. Do not assume property is gone for good just because a case is over—contact us to find out what options may still be available.