People v. One 1951 Chevrolet 2-Door

California Court of Appeal Jan 30, 1958 No. Civ. 5737; Civ. 5739Published

Before: Mussell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the forfeiture of a vehicle under the Health and Safety Code is not contingent upon the vehicle being seized at the exact time of the unlawful use or arrest. The provisions regarding immediate seizure are directory rather than jurisdictional, and the state's right to forfeiture is not waived by a delayed seizure.

Issues

Whether a vehicle forfeiture proceeding is invalid if the vehicle was not seized at the time of the unlawful use or arrest.
Whether the provisions of section 11611 of the Health and Safety Code regarding seizure are jurisdictional or directory.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The provisions of section 11611 are merely directory, giving certain instructions to peace officers and there is nothing in section 11610 to the effect that a forfeiture depends upon the immediate seizure of a vehicle at the time of the arrest.”

“The right of forfeiture accrued in the instant cases at the time when the vehicles were used in violation of the statute and the failure of the officers to seize the vehicles immediately upon the arrests did not in our opinion defeat such right.”

MUSSELL, J.

These appeals are from judgments of the Superior Courts of Riverside and Orange Counties forfeiting the interests of the legal and registered owners of automobiles in proceedings commenced by the People of the State of California pursuant to the provisions of section 11612 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California by reason of the unlawful use of said vehicles contrary to the force and effect of section 11610 of said code.

It is stipulated by the parties that the automobiles involved were not seized on behalf of the State at the time of the unlawful use thereof but were seized at a later date at a time when they were not being unlawfully used. It is further stipulated that the sole question presented in these appeals is the question of whether or not proceedings of the type involved in the superior court and judgments or forfeiture rendered therein can be based upon such delayed seizures.

On July 24, 1956, the Attorney General of the State of California filed in Riverside County a notice of seizure and intended forfeiture of the Chevrolet automobile involved, alleging that it had been used in violation of section 11610 of the Health and Safety Code. Answers were filed by the Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, the legal owner, and Rudy Avila, the registered owner of the ear, denying its unlawful use. The trial court found that on April

[303]

5, 1956, this vehicle was used to unlawfully transport a narcotic in violation of section 11610 of the Health and Safety Code; that the vehicle was seized by officers of the Riverside County sheriff’s office on June 13, 1956, at which time it was not being used in an unlawful manner, and that the original interest of the Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association in said automobile was not created after a reasonable investigation of the moral responsibility, character and reputation of the purchaser, Rudy Avila.

In the case of the People versus the Mercury automobile, the notice of seizure and intended forfeiture was filed in the Superior Court of Orange County on May 3,1956. It is alleged in this notice that the 1955 Mercury had been unlawfully used to transport and possess a narcotic in violation of section 11610 of the Health and Safety Code. An answer was filed by the Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, the legal owner of the car, denying its unlawful use.

People v. One 1951 Chevrolet 2-Door

AI Brief

MUSSELL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief