People v. One 1951 Chevrolet 2-Door, License No. HND 342, Engine No. JAA 932815
| Decision Date | 30 January 1958 |
| Citation | 320 P.2d 881,157 Cal.App.2d 301 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ONE 1951 CHEVROLET 2-DOOR, LICENSE NO. HND 342, ENGINE NO. JAA 932815 and Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, Defendant and Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ONE 1955 2-DOOR MONTCLAIR MERCURY, LICENSE NO. 2W46425, SERIAL NO. 55LA11392M and Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 5737, 5739. |
Samuel B. Stewart, San Francisco, Hugo A. Steinmeyer, and Winfield Jones, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Lynn Henry Johnson, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
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 car, denying its unlawful use. The trial court found that on April 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 v. 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.
The trial judge found that the registered owner of the vehicle had handed a marijuana cigarette to another person while seated in the vehicle on January 12, 1956; that the vehicle was seized by officers of the Santa Ana police department on January 22, 1956, at which time it was not being unlawfully used and that the Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, legal owner of said vehicle, presented no evidence that its interest in said vehicle was created after a reasonable investigation of the moral responsibility, character and reputation of the purchaser, Elwood Jones.
The appeals herein were taken by the Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association and it was stipulated by the parties that the same factual situation and question presented are involved in both cases. It was further stipulated that it would be for the convenience and best interests of the court and all of the parties herein to consolidate the aforesaid cases for hearing and briefing. Pursuant to orders of this court the briefs filed are the same in each case.
The principal contentions on appeal are that the seizures of the automobiles involved were unauthorized since they were not made at the time the vehicles were being unlawfully used and that such seizures were thus insufficient to give the court jurisdiction over the forfeiture proceedings.
Section 11610 of the Health and Safety Code reads as follows:
'A vehicle used to unlawfully transport or facilitate the unlawful transportation of any narcotic, or in which any narcotic is unlawfully kept,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cooper, Cr. 4233
...deposited or concealed' therein. It has been held that the provisions of the section are merely directory. (People v. One 1951 Chevrolet (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 301, 305, 320 P.2d 881.) Obviously the statute relied upon is part of the enforcement procedure established for the forfeiture of ve......
-
1976 Porsche Auto. New Mexico License No. BNE-532 VIN: '4762900200, Matter of
...Cal. 185, 228 P. 15 (1924), and Sampsell v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.2d 763, 197 P.2d 739 (1948). See also People v. One 1951 Chevrolet 2-Door, 157 Cal.App.2d 301, 320 P.2d 881 (1958). Opposed to these cases are decisions which reject the ability of the court to acquire jurisdiction over a re......
-
O'reilly v. United States
...Volkswagen Sedan, 105 Ariz. 315, 464 P.2d 338, 339-340 (1970) civil forfeiture, 21/2 month time lapse; People v. One 1951 Chevrolet 2-Door, 157 Cal.App.2d 30, 320 P.2d 881 (1958) civil forfeiture, period Two of these cases have recognized that delayed seizure may be justified because of und......
- Heckenkamp v. ZIV Television Programs, Inc.