Commonwealth Of Massachusetts Vs. $655.

U.S. CURRENCY Case Number: 24CV-0204435 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of return of funds. At the last hearing on June 10, 2024, the People advised the Court that the underlying criminal case was dismissed. The People further advised they intended to dismiss this case. The Court directed return of the funds to the Claimant. A Motion to Dismiss has been filed. However, the return of funds has not been addressed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to address the status of the return of funds. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. $1000.00

U.S. CURRENCY Case Number: 24CV-0204435 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of return of funds. At the last hearing on June 10, 2024, the People advised the Court that the underlying criminal case was dismissed. The People further advised they intended to dismiss this case. The Court directed return of the funds to the Claimant. A Motion to Dismiss has been filed. However, the return of funds has not been addressed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to address the status of the return of funds. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. $1000.00

THE PEOPLE VS. $14, 240.00 U.S. CURRENCY Case Number: CVPT21-0197475 Tentative Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment: The People of the State of California move for forfeiture of $11,440.00 US Currency pursuant to Health and Safety Code 11488.5(b)(1). Hearing on this Motion for Default Judgment was continued from April 15, 2024 to permit the People to cure the following defects: 1) improper proof of service, 2) improperly verified declaration. Both defects have been cured. Merits: Currency that is “furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance” or used or intended to be used to facilitate particular provisions of the Health and Safety Code are subject to seizure and forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11470. The judicial and/or administrative procedure for forfeiture is laid out generally in Health and Safety Code §§ 11488.4 and 11488.5. For a judicial forfeiture the District Attorney’s Office (or other agency) is required to file a Petition for Forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(a). The Petition for Forfeiture must be served on the individuals from whom the property was seized. Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(c). This service is in addition to the service of a notice at the time of the seizure. Id. Notices of forfeiture must also be published for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the subject property was seized. Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(e). The notice must contain a description of the property, the appraised value of the property, the date and place of seizure or location of any property not seized but subject to forfeiture, the violation of the law alleged with respect to forfeiture of the property, and the instructions for filing and serving a claim. Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(j). To challenge the forfeiture, any person claiming an interest in seized property must file a verified claim within 30 days after receipt of actual notice. Health and Safety § 11488.5(a)(1). If at the end of the 30-day period, or after 30 days from the date of the last publication, there is no claim on file, the court upon motion shall declare the property forfeited. Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(b)(1). If no timely claim is filed, the Court, upon motion, shall declare the property seized or subject to forfeiture upon a showing by the District Attorney that there is a prima facie case in support of the forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(b)(1). Under either state or federal law, the “probable cause” standard represents the minimum prima facie case the People must make to obtain a default forfeiture judgment. People v. $47,050 (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1319, 1325, fn. 6. A prima face case of probable cause for forfeiture is that minimal level of evidence to support the conclusion that the illegal activities alleged specifically related to narcotics trafficking, or evidence linking the cash to a narcotics transaction. People v. $497,590 United States Currency (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 145, 154. An expert’s opinion on an ultimate issue of fact is admissible and may constitute substantial evidence in forfeiture matters where is based on an adequate factual foundation showing a nexus between the cash seized and narcotics trafficking. People v. $47,050, supra 17 Cal.App.4th at 1325. Here, the subject property was seized from Marty Hilliard, who was served the required notices and signed the acknowledgement of receipt. Hilliard filed a Claim Opposing Forfeiture on June 4, 2021. The People filed a Petition for Forfeiture in Rem on June 24, 2021. The Petition was served on Hilliard by mail. After multiple failures to appear at hearings regarding the Claim, and the imposition of sanctions, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for failure to appear. On April 17, 2023, the Court dismissed the Claim pursuant to Gov’t Code section 68608(b). Notice was properly published in the Record Searchlight on April 21, 2024, April 28, 2024, and May 5, 2024. As for the prima facie case, Petitioner has met its burden. Officer Seth Edwards has provided the necessary expert opinion that the seized currency was furnished or was intended to be furnished by a person in exchange for a controlled substance, was proceeds traceable to an exchange of controlled substances or was/intended to be used to facilitate conduct in violation of Health and Safety Code §§ 11359 and/or 11360. His opinion is supported by the foundational facts that: the $11,440.00 US Currency was found in Mr. Hillard’s residence, along with 6 ounces of methamphetamine, one ounce of heroin, packaging materials, and a digital scale. Petitioner has provided the required evidence to establish a prima facie case of forfeiture. The Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED. A proposed order and judgment has been lodged and will be executed.

THE PEOPLE VS. $14, 240.00 U.S. CURRENCY Case Number: CVPT21-0197475 Tentative Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment: The People of the State of California move for forfeiture of $11,440.00 US Currency pursuant to Health and Safety Code 11488.5(b)(1). Hearing on this Motion for Default Judgment was continued from April 15, 2024 to permit the People to cure the following defects: 1) improper proof of service, 2) improperly verified declaration. Both defects have been cured. Merits: Currency that is “furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance” or used or intended to be used to facilitate particular provisions of the Health and Safety Code are subject to seizure and forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11470. The judicial and/or administrative procedure for forfeiture is laid out generally in Health and Safety Code §§ 11488.4 and 11488.5. For a judicial forfeiture the District Attorney’s Office (or other agency) is required to file a Petition for Forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(a). The Petition for Forfeiture must be served on the individuals from whom the property was seized. Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(c). This service is in addition to the service of a notice at the time of the seizure. Id. Notices of forfeiture must also be published for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the subject property was seized. Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(e). The notice must contain a description of the property, the appraised value of the property, the date and place of seizure or location of any property not seized but subject to forfeiture, the violation of the law alleged with respect to forfeiture of the property, and the instructions for filing and serving a claim. Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(j). To challenge the forfeiture, any person claiming an interest in seized property must file a verified claim within 30 days after receipt of actual notice. Health and Safety § 11488.5(a)(1). If at the end of the 30-day period, or after 30 days from the date of the last publication, there is no claim on file, the court upon motion shall declare the property forfeited. Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(b)(1). If no timely claim is filed, the Court, upon motion, shall declare the property seized or subject to forfeiture upon a showing by the District Attorney that there is a prima facie case in support of the forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(b)(1). Under either state or federal law, the “probable cause” standard represents the minimum prima facie case the People must make to obtain a default forfeiture judgment. People v. $47,050 (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1319, 1325, fn. 6. A prima face case of probable cause for forfeiture is that minimal level of evidence to support the conclusion that the illegal activities alleged specifically related to narcotics trafficking, or evidence linking the cash to a narcotics transaction. People v. $497,590 United States Currency (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 145, 154. An expert’s opinion on an ultimate issue of fact is admissible and may constitute substantial evidence in forfeiture matters where is based on an adequate factual foundation showing a nexus between the cash seized and narcotics trafficking. People v. $47,050, supra 17 Cal.App.4th at 1325. Here, the subject property was seized from Marty Hilliard, who was served the required notices and signed the acknowledgement of receipt. Hilliard filed a Claim Opposing Forfeiture on June 4, 2021. The People filed a Petition for Forfeiture in Rem on June 24, 2021. The Petition was served on Hilliard by mail. After multiple failures to appear at hearings regarding the Claim, and the imposition of sanctions, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for failure to appear. On April 17, 2023, the Court dismissed the Claim pursuant to Gov’t Code section 68608(b). Notice was properly published in the Record Searchlight on April 21, 2024, April 28, 2024, and May 5, 2024. As for the prima facie case, Petitioner has met its burden. Officer Seth Edwards has provided the necessary expert opinion that the seized currency was furnished or was intended to be furnished by a person in exchange for a controlled substance, was proceeds traceable to an exchange of controlled substances or was/intended to be used to facilitate conduct in violation of Health and Safety Code §§ 11359 and/or 11360. His opinion is supported by the foundational facts that: the $11,440.00 US Currency was found in Mr. Hillard’s residence, along with 6 ounces of methamphetamine, one ounce of heroin, packaging materials, and a digital scale. Petitioner has provided the required evidence to establish a prima facie case of forfeiture. The Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED. A proposed order and judgment has been lodged and will be executed.

U.S. CURRENCY Case Number: 22CV-0199795 This consolidated asset forfeiture matter is on calendar for review regarding status of criminal proceedings and amended petition. On June 10, 2024, the People advised the Court that Judgment and Sentencing in the underlying criminal matter was set for June 13, 2024. No amended petition has been filed. No status report has been filed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to provide the Court with a status of the criminal proceeding and amended petition.

THE PEOPLE VS. $14, 240.00 U.S. CURRENCY Case Number: CVPT21-0197475 Tentative Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment: The People of the State of California move for forfeiture of $11,440.00 US Currency pursuant to Health and Safety Code 11488.5(b)(1). Hearing on this Motion for Default Judgment was continued from April 15, 2024 to permit the People to cure the following defects: 1) improper proof of service, 2) improperly verified declaration. Both defects have been cured. Merits: Currency that is “furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance” or used or intended to be used to facilitate particular provisions of the Health and Safety Code are subject to seizure and forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11470. The judicial and/or administrative procedure for forfeiture is laid out generally in Health and Safety Code §§ 11488.4 and 11488.5. For a judicial forfeiture the District Attorney’s Office (or other agency) is required to file a Petition for Forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(a). The Petition for Forfeiture must be served on the individuals from whom the property was seized. Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(c). This service is in addition to the service of a notice at the time of the seizure. Id. Notices of forfeiture must also be published for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the subject property was seized. Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(e). The notice must contain a description of the property, the appraised value of the property, the date and place of seizure or location of any property not seized but subject to forfeiture, the violation of the law alleged with respect to forfeiture of the property, and the instructions for filing and serving a claim. Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(j). To challenge the forfeiture, any person claiming an interest in seized property must file a verified claim within 30 days after receipt of actual notice. Health and Safety § 11488.5(a)(1). If at the end of the 30-day period, or after 30 days from the date of the last publication, there is no claim on file, the court upon motion shall declare the property forfeited. Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(b)(1). If no timely claim is filed, the Court, upon motion, shall declare the property seized or subject to forfeiture upon a showing by the District Attorney that there is a prima facie case in support of the forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(b)(1). Under either state or federal law, the “probable cause” standard represents the minimum prima facie case the People must make to obtain a default forfeiture judgment. People v. $47,050 (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1319, 1325, fn. 6. A prima face case of probable cause for forfeiture is that minimal level of evidence to support the conclusion that the illegal activities alleged specifically related to narcotics trafficking, or evidence linking the cash to a narcotics transaction. People v. $497,590 United States Currency (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 145, 154. An expert’s opinion on an ultimate issue of fact is admissible and may constitute substantial evidence in forfeiture matters where is based on an adequate factual foundation showing a nexus between the cash seized and narcotics trafficking. People v. $47,050, supra 17 Cal.App.4th at 1325. Here, the subject property was seized from Marty Hilliard, who was served the required notices and signed the acknowledgement of receipt. Hilliard filed a Claim Opposing Forfeiture on June 4, 2021. The People filed a Petition for Forfeiture in Rem on June 24, 2021. The Petition was served on Hilliard by mail. After multiple failures to appear at hearings regarding the Claim, and the imposition of sanctions, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for failure to appear. On April 17, 2023, the Court dismissed the Claim pursuant to Gov’t Code section 68608(b). Notice was properly published in the Record Searchlight on April 21, 2024, April 28, 2024, and May 5, 2024. As for the prima facie case, Petitioner has met its burden. Officer Seth Edwards has provided the necessary expert opinion that the seized currency was furnished or was intended to be furnished by a person in exchange for a controlled substance, was proceeds traceable to an exchange of controlled substances or was/intended to be used to facilitate conduct in violation of Health and Safety Code §§ 11359 and/or 11360. His opinion is supported by the foundational facts that: the $11,440.00 US Currency was found in Mr. Hillard’s residence, along with 6 ounces of methamphetamine, one ounce of heroin, packaging materials, and a digital scale. Petitioner has provided the required evidence to establish a prima facie case of forfeiture. The Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED. A proposed order and judgment has been lodged and will be executed.

U.S. CURRENCY Case Number: 24CV-0204435 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of return of funds. At the last hearing on June 10, 2024, the People advised the Court that the underlying criminal case was dismissed. The People further advised they intended to dismiss this case. The Court directed return of the funds to the Claimant. A Motion to Dismiss has been filed. However, the return of funds has not been addressed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to address the status of the return of funds. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. $1000.00

24CV01925 IN RE: CLAIM OF LUX VENDING, LLC EVENT: Motion for Return of Property This matter has been reassigned and is continued to Monday, August 5, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. to be heard by Judge Merrifield in Courtroom 3 at the North Butte County Courthouse in Chico. Counsel may appear by Court Call and shall provide notice. 3|Page

U.S. CURRENCY Case Number: 24CV-0204435 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of return of funds. At the last hearing on June 10, 2024, the People advised the Court that the underlying criminal case was dismissed. The People further advised they intended to dismiss this case. The Court directed return of the funds to the Claimant. A Motion to Dismiss has been filed. However, the return of funds has not been addressed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to address the status of the return of funds. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. $1000.00