People v. One 1937 Lincoln Zephyr Sedan

California Supreme Court Jul 10, 1945 No. L. A. 19132Published

Before: Gibson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act's exemption for common carriers protects the vehicle of an innocent owner from forfeiture when an employee uses the vehicle for illegal liquor sales without the owner's knowledge or participation.

Issues

Whether a taxicab owner who is a common carrier is exempt from vehicle forfeiture under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act when an employee uses the vehicle for illegal liquor sales without the owner's knowledge.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The statute does not purport to limit the exemption in favor of common carriers to acts committed in the vehicles by members of the public”

“the law does not favor forfeitures and the statute should be strictly construed in favor of the owner.”

“Our construction of section 52 (i) of the act, exempting innocent common carriers from forfeiture of vehicles wrongfully used by employees in violation of the statute, does not contravene the provision of section 11 of article 1 of the state Constitution”

GIBSON, C. J.

This proceeding was brought under section 52 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (Stats. 1935, p. 1123, and amendments

thereto;

Deering’s Gen. Laws, 1941 Supp.,

[737]

p. 2006, Act 3796) to forfeit to the State a taxicab on the ground that the driver thereof violated sections 3 and 51(g) of the act by possessing, transporting and selling alcoholic beverages without a license.

There is no dispute as to the material facts. The evidence discloses that while operating the taxicab the driver sold two bottles of whiskey to a sailor who was riding in the vehicle. The driver was arrested, pleaded guilty, and was fined. The taxicab was impounded and notice of seizure and intended forfeiture was served as required by section 52(b) of the act. The registered owner who operated the taxicab company answered and prayed for the release of the vehicle. The trial court found that the owner was not present when the violation occurred, had no personal connection therewith and had instructed his drivers not to sell or transport intoxicating liquor in the taxicabs. The State has appealed from the ensuing judgment dismissing the forfeiture proceeding and releasing the vehicle to the owner.

Section 3 of the act provides in part that “Any person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Section 51(g) provides: “It shall be unlawful for any person to use any automobile or other vehicle to conceal, convey, carry, or transport any alcoholic beverages . . . with the design to evade the excise taxes or license fees imposed by this act; . . . Any automobile or other vehicle used to conceal, convey, carry or transport alcoholic beverages, ... in violation of this section shall be forfeited to the State of California. ’ ’

Under similar forfeiture provisions it has been held that when the owner of an automobile consents to its lawful use by another who illegally operates it to transport or sell narcotics or alcoholic beverages, the owner may not defeat a forfeiture on the ground that he had no knowledge of the violation of the statute.

People v. One 1937 Lincoln Zephyr Sedan

AI Brief

GIBSON, C. J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief