Benson v. Cnty. of Mendocino

• Decision Date: 21 February 2018
• Docket Number: A145389
• Parties: THOMAS BENSON, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF MENDOCINO, et al., Defendants and Respondents.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

THOMAS BENSON, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF MENDOCINO, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

A145389

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

February 21, 2018

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUK-CVG-14-63425)

California's drug asset forfeiture laws (Health & Saf. Code,¹ § 11469 et seq.) provide procedures under which property connected with certain unlawful drug activity may be forfeited to the state or local government. (Ramirez v. Tulare County District Attorney's Office (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 911, 917 (Ramirez).) "[F]orfeiture is disfavored," however, and "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." (Ibid.)

In this case, plaintiffs Thomas Benson, Michelle Pierce, and Ole Stribling allege their property was seized by law enforcement officers but the resulting forfeiture proceedings were "invalid in the first instance" because they were initiated in violation of the statutory requirements for nonjudicial forfeiture. Plaintiffs petitioned for a writ of mandate seeking the return of their seized property. They also sought class certification.

Defendants demurred to plaintiffs' second amended petition, and the trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend.

Following Ramirez, we conclude plaintiffs have alleged facts establishing the forfeiture proceedings were invalid from the start. Defendants argue plaintiffs' claims fail on the grounds that (1) plaintiffs failed to file a timely claim under the forfeiture laws, (2) plaintiffs did not comply with the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), (3) the statute of limitations has run, (4) plaintiffs cannot seek a writ of mandate because defendants have no ministerial duty to return the seized property, and (5) plaintiffs failed to allege facts establishing the city police departments were liable for the seizures.

Plaintiffs do not dispute that plaintiff Pierce has no claim against the city police departments. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of dismissal in favor of Fort Bragg Police Department, the Ukiah Police Department, and the Willits Police Department as to the claim brought by Pierce. We find no merit to defendants' remaining arguments, however, and otherwise reverse the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Second Amended Petition²

In their second amended petition (petition), the operative pleading, plaintiffs alleged the following facts.

Defendant Mendocino Major Crimes Task Force (MMCTF) is a law enforcement unit made up of officers of the Fort Bragg Police Department, the Ukiah PoliceDepartment and the Willits Police Department (collectively city defendants), the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office (Sheriff or county defendant), and the California Highway Patrol (CHP or state defendant).

On March 14, 2011, MMCTF officers seized $6,000 in cash from Benson. MMCTF Officer R. Simas issued and signed a "Receipt and Notice of Non-Judicial Forfeiture Proceedings" (Notice/Receipt), which provided that the currency was seized for forfeiture in connection with violations of sections 11359 (possession of marijuana for sale) and 11360 (transportation of marijuana for purposes of sale).³ Benson was not charged with a crime. "Nonetheless," on May 31, 2011, a Mendocino County deputy district attorney⁴ executed a "Declaration of Administrative Forfeiture" pursuant to section 11488.4, subdivision (j), declaring the $6,000 forfeited to the state.

On October 16, 2011, Sheriff's Deputy Tim Goss seized $8,890 in cash from Pierce and issued and signed a Notice/Receipt, which provided that the currency was seized for forfeiture in connection with a violation of section 11360, subdivision (a) (transportation of marijuana for purposes of sale). The Notice/Receipt identified the location of the seizure as "MPH 42 Hwy 101, Willits CA." Pierce was never charged with a crime, but, on December 13, 2011, District Attorney C. David Eyster personally executed a "Declaration of Administrative Forfeiture" pursuant to section 11488.4, subdivision (j), declaring the $8,890 forfeited to the state.

On August 22, 2013, MMCTF officers seized $2,400 in cash from Stribling. MMCTF Officer Hoyle issued and signed a Notice/Receipt, which provided that $2,300 in United States currency was seized for forfeiture in connection with a violation of section 11359 (possession of marijuana for purposes of sale). Stribling was never charged with a crime, but, on January 16, 2014, a deputy district attorney executed a"Declaration of Administrative Forfeiture" pursuant to section 11488.4, subdivision (j), declaring the $2,300 forfeited to the state.⁵

Based on these factual allegations, plaintiffs sought a writ of mandate compelling return of the seized property or equitable payment of compensation. Plaintiffs alleged the Declarations of Administrative Forfeiture were invalid and unenforceable because the administrative forfeiture proceedings were unlawfully initiated by police officers rather than by the Attorney General or a district attorney as required by section 11488.4.⁶

Defendants demurred to the petition. State defendant argued plaintiffs' claims failed because (1) plaintiffs failed to comply with the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), (2) their claims were barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations, (3) mandate relief was unavailable because defendants have no duty to return lawfully forfeited property, and (4) plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.

County defendant also made the first three arguments made by state defendant, and joined the other defendants' demurrers.

City defendants joined the other defendants' demurrers and raised the additional argument that, as to Benson and Pierce, the petition failed to allege any involvement by a city employee. According to the petition, Benson's cash was seized by a CHP officer, and Pierce's cash was seized by a Sheriff's deputy.

The trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend on the grounds that, first, plaintiffs were not entitled to a writ of mandate because they "failed to demonstrate the existence of a ministerial duty and/or that they do not have an adequateremedy at law" and, second, plaintiffs failed to comply with the Government Claims Act. In addition, as to city defendants, the trial court found plaintiffs failed to allege that city employees were involved in the seizures related to Benson and Pierce.

However, the trial court rejected the argument that plaintiffs' claims were barred because they failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Relying on Cuevas v. Superior Court (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1312 (Cuevas), the court found, "since each of the three challenged forfeitures was invalid from the beginning, there was no valid forfeiture proceeding in which any of the three [plaintiffs] could have made a claim pursuant to [section] 11488.4." (See id. at p. 1327 [procedural defects in the notice made the nonjudicial forfeiture proceeding "invalid in the first instance"].) The trial court also rejected the argument that plaintiffs' claims were time barred, finding the limitations period "irrelevant and moot."

DISCUSSION

"A forfeiture proceeding is a civil in rem action in which property is considered the defendant, on the fiction that the property is the guilty party. [Citations.] Statutes imposing forfeitures are disfavored and are to be ' "strictly construed in favor of the persons against whom they are sought to be imposed." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Superior Court (Plascencia) (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 409, 418 (Plascencia).)

Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to return of their seized property because defendants failed to follow the statutory procedures required to effect a nonjudicial forfeiture. Defendants respond that plaintiffs' claims fail for all the reasons raised in their demurrers. We begin with a brief overview of the applicable forfeiture laws.

A. Drug Asset Forfeiture Laws

The drug asset forfeiture laws comprise "a comprehensive scheme governing forfeitures of controlled substances, property, cash, and other things of value used in connection with the trade in controlled substances." (Plascencia, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at pp. 418-419.)

1. Peace Officers Are Authorized to Seize Currency Traceable to Drug Crimes

Under section 11470, subdivision (f), "currency is subject to forfeiture if it is furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance, traceable to such an exchange, or used or intended to be used to facilitate trafficking in, or the manufacture of, various controlled substances." (Plascencia, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 419, citing § 11470, subd. (f).) Under section 11471, subd. (d), "[p]roperty subject to forfeiture may be seized by a peace officer if there is probable cause to believe the property was used for the specified illicit purposes." (Ibid., citing § 11471, subd. (d).)

"Section 11488, subdivision (a), permits any peace officer, after making or attempting to make an arrest for certain drug crimes, to 'seize any item subject to forfeiture' under section 11470. Subdivision (b) of section 11488 requires the police officer to issue a receipt for the property 'to any person out of whose possession such property was seized.' Subdivision (c) of section 11488 states that a presumption exists 'that the person to whom the receipt for property was issued is the owner thereof.' " (Ramirez, supra, 9 Cal.App.5th at p. 925.)

Section 11488.1...