People v. 25651 Minoa Drive

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 45·2 Cal. App. 4th 787·3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 577·92 Daily Journal DAR 648·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 449
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 13, 1992G010170California4,669 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sills, J.

Steven M. Keen appeals after the trial court ordered the profits from the sale of his residence forfeited pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11470, subdivision (g). The trial court found that the profits were subject to forfeiture because Keen’s residence was “related to” a violation of section 11366, which prohibits the maintenance of any place for the sale of controlled substances. Many of the issues raised by Keen touch upon the fundamental issue of whether this forfeiture action is essentially “criminal” or “civil” in nature. One of the forfeiture statutes specifically provides that “[t]he Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to proceedings under this chapter . . . .” (§ 11488.4, subd. (i).) For this and other reasons, we ultimately conclude this indeed is a civil action, and our holding aids the People in this case. Like the thorns that accompany the rose, however, the application of civil procedure rules to forfeiture proceedings carries with it the spectre of discovery battles, depositions, and demurrers. Although we believe the judgment in this case should be affirmed, prosecutors’ offices should be aware that the forfeiture statutes open up a veritable…

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.