Green

People v. Green

Good Law
125 Cal. App. 4th 360·22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 736
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 28, 2004E034784California1,322 words

Opinion

Opinion

Richli, J.

Penal Code section 186.11 (section 186.11) is sometimes known as the “Freeze and Seize Law.” (Assem. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 2827 (1995-1996 Reg. Sess.) p. 1.) It defines an “aggravated white collar crime enhancement.” When such an enhancement applies, it allows the trial court, before trial, to enjoin the defendant from disposing of assets; it then allows the trial court, after trial, to levy on those assets to pay restitution to victims.

Here, the People seized certain assets of defendant Douglas Green pursuant to a search warrant. Later, however, the People asserted a right to retain the assets pursuant to section 186.11. Meanwhile, Green gave his then-attorney, Lawrence Buckley, a security interest in the same assets for unpaid attorney fees. The most valuable assets, however, were vehicles and cash; as long as these assets were in the hands of the People, Buckley could not perfect his security interest in them. After Green was convicted, the trial court ruled that, under section 186.11, Buckley had priority over the victims only to the extent that he had perfected his security interest.

Buckley appeals. He contends section 186.11 did not…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.