Opposing Forfeiture Due to Drug Activity in California

What Are the Laws on Opposing Forfeiture Due to Drug Activity?

Purpose and Scope

Under California law, property connected with certain unlawful drug activity may be subject to forfeiture to the state or local government. (Ramirez v. Tulare Cnty. Dist. Atty's Office (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 911, 917 citing Health & Saf. Code, § 11469 –11495, the forfeiture statutes). The law is intended to be “remedial by removing the tools and profits from those engaged in the illicit drug trade.” (Id., citing § 11469(j).)

Nonetheless, because forfeiture is disfavored, the forfeiture statutes are strictly construed in favor of the person against whom forfeiture is sought, and procedural requirements set forth in the forfeiture statutes must be fully satisfied by the agency pursuing that remedy. (Ramirez, supra, citing See Cuevas v. Super. Ct. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1312, 1322–1331.)

Statutory Provisions

Health and Safety Code § 11470-11489 set forth the provisions of state law which allow for the seizure and forfeiture of property used for, and proceeds traceable to, unlawful drug transactions. (People v. $400 (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1615, 1618-19 citing People v. Property Listed in Exhibit One (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1, 5; People v. Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Seventeen Dollars (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 720, 723.) The statute is comparable to the federal forfeiture scheme. (People v. $400 (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1615, 1618-19 citing 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881; People v. Property Listed in Exhibit One, supra, 227 Cal.App.3d 1, 6; Nasir v. Sacramento County Off. of the Dist. Atty. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 976, 983.)

The statutes provide for both judicial and nonjudicial forfeiture. § 11488.4 of the Health and Safety Code allows the government to obtain forfeiture without judicial involvement when there is no objection and when the value of the property is small (under $100,000). (People v. $400 (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1615, 1619.)

Procedural Process for Claim Opposing Forfeiture — Verified Claim Required

If an individual claiming an interest in property seized wishes to challenge the administrative forfeiture, he or she must file a verified claim with the superior court. (People v. $400 (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1615, 1619 citing Health Saf. Code, § 11488.5(a).) Once the claim is filed, nonjudicial forfeiture terminates and forfeiture can only be achieved through the judicial forfeiture procedure. (Id., citing People v. Property Listed in Exhibit One, supra, 227 Cal.App.3d at pp. 6-7; Nasir v. Sacramento County Off. of the Dist. Atty., supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at pp. 983-984; Health Saf. Code, § 11488.5(e).)

Any person claiming an interest in the property seized pursuant to § 11488 may, unless for good cause shown the court extends the time for filing, at any time within 30 days from the date of the last publication of the notice of seizure, if that person was not personally served or served by mail, or within 30 days after receipt of actual notice, file with the superior court of the county in which the defendant has been charged with the underlying or related criminal offense or in which the property was seized or, if there was no seizure, in which the property is located, a claim, verified in accordance with § 446 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stating his or her interest in the property. Health & Saf. Code, § 11488.5.

Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b) requires that unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers must be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing and, if notice of the motion is served by mail, that period shall be extended by five calendar days.

Forfeiture proceedings are civil in nature. (People v. $2,709 United States Currency (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1278, 1285.) Pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 11488.5(c)(3), the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings under this chapter (i.e., Chapter 8, §§ 11469, et seq., related to forfeiture laws and proceedings) unless otherwise inconsistent with the provisions or procedures set forth in this chapter, with the exception that joinder of actions, coordination of non-forfeiture actions, and cross-complaints, and the resolution of issues unrelated to the chapter, are prohibited.

Documents for Opposing Forfeiture Due to Drug Activity in California

Sort By

The People of the State of California vs. Crystal Thomas document preview

Petition filed - Petition for Forfeiture and POS

73 pages

‘| LISA A. SMITTCAMP E-FILED DISTRICT ATTORNEY 2/7/2022 1:35 PM JOHN TULLY #247085 Superior Court of California County of Fresno DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY By: C. York, Deputy 2100 Tulare Street Fresn…

Case Name The People of the State of California vs. Crystal Thomas