People v. Icenogle

California Court of Appeal Feb 8, 1985 No. B003330Published

Before: Feinerman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to order the return of seized funds under Penal Code section 1536 because the property was no longer in the possession or control of the court or the police, and the court cannot award damages in a criminal proceeding.

Issues

Whether a trial court has jurisdiction under Penal Code section 1536 to order the return of property that is no longer in the possession of the court or the seizing agency.
Whether a criminal proceeding is the appropriate forum to award damages for the loss of seized property.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the trial judge exceeded his jurisdiction and improperly sought to grant a civil remedy to Icenogle under the cover of a criminal procedure section inapplicable to the facts of the instant case.”

“When the trial court ordered appellants to reimburse Icenogle, it was essentially making an award of damages, a remedy not authorized in a criminal proceeding.”

“Here, there was no res upon which the provisions of Penal Code section 1536 could operate.”

Opinion

FEINERMAN, P. J.

This is an appeal from a court order requiring appellants to return $5,680 in cash which was seized in a criminal case involving Lee Arthur Icenogle (Icenogle). Appellants contend that the subject money was forfeited to the federal government pursuant to federal statute and that the court abused its discretion in ordering them to restore property

[622]

which was no longer under their control. Without reaching the question of whether the federal government properly “adopted” the original seizure,

we agree that the trial court erred in its order and reverse the judgment.

Background

On December 9, 1982, Los Angeles police executed a search warrant at Icenogle’s residence,

and they arrested him for possession of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351. One of the arresting officers then phoned an agent of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration to report that in connection with having served a search warrant on a suspected heroin dealer, the officer had seized more than $5,000 in cash. Shortly thereafter, federal agents went to talk to the officer at police headquarters.

After telling the federal agents that he thought that the money seized represented proceeds from drug sales,

the police officer voluntarily gave them Icenogle’s money pursuant to 21 United States Code section 881(a)(6).

The agents gave the officer a receipt for the cash, but the police officer did not forward a copy of the receipt to Icenogle.

On March 14, 1983, the Drug Enforcement Administration sent a registered letter to Icenogle to notify him that the agency was taking steps to forfeit the seized money pursuant to 19 United States Code sections 1607-1618. That notice went unclaimed, and when the United States Post Office returned it to the Drug Enforcement Administration, the agency published notice in the Los Angeles Daily Journal

People v. Icenogle

AI Brief

FEINERMAN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief