People v. One 1950 Pontiac 2-Door Coupe

• Decision Date: 20 June 1961
• Docket Number: No. FYZ,D,No. C8TH19459,FYZ,C8TH19459
• Citation: 13 Cal.Rptr. 916,193 Cal.App.2d 216
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ONE 1950 PONTIAC 2-DOOR COUPE, License418, Engineefendant, Moses Poole, Registered Owner and Respondent. Civ. 24833.

Page 916

13 Cal.Rptr. 916

193 Cal.App.2d 216

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ONE 1950 PONTIAC 2-DOOR COUPE, License No. FYZ 418, Engine No. C8TH19459, Defendant Moses Poole, Registered Owner and Respondent.

Civ. 24833.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

June 20, 1961.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Philip C. Criffin, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellant.

No appearance for respondent.

BISHOP, Justice pro tem.

We have not been favored with any argument on respondent's behalf, either written or oral. This does not surprise us, for we are satisfied that the affirmative answer given by the trial court to the question that the parties stipulated was the sole issue before the court, cannot be successfully defended.

This is an action brought under sections 11610-11629, Health and Safety Code, providing for the forfeiture to the State of a vehicle used for the unlawful transportation of a narcotic. In reply to the 'Notice of Seizure and Intended Forfeiture Proceedings,' addressed to Moses Poole as the registered owner of the vehicle identified in the title, Poole filed an answer in which he admitted ownership of the vehicle; denied that it had been used to transport a narcotic unlawfully; and, as an affirmative defense, alleged that he had been arrested for the possession of a narcotic on the day the vehicle was alleged to have been seized; that thereafter he was charged in an information with the violation of section 500 of the Health and Safety Code (by which, no doubt, he meant section 11500, which prohibits the possession, transportation, or other dealings with a narcotic); that he was tried and found not guilty by reason of the fact that the evidence in the case, the narcotic, was obtained by an illegal search and seizure.

We are given no record of the oral proceedings at the trial, but in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the trial court, in its recital of the proceedings that had taken place said: '* * * and it being stipulated by and between the parties through their respective counsel, that the sole issue before the Court was whether the plaintiff, the State of California, is estopped from forfeiting a vehicle in which narcotics were being transported subsequent to an acquittal of the said claimant following a trial on the merits for the offense of possession of the same narcotics giving rise to said forfeiture action, said acquittal being grounded solely upon the opinion of the trial judge that said contraband was obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure * * *.' As its Conclusions of Law the trial court stated: 'Forfeiture of the defendant automobile is denied for the reason that the judgment of acquittal of the claimant, Moses Poole, on the sole ground of the illegality of the search and seizure collaterally estops the People of the State of California from introducing evidence of probable cause, thereby precluding...