Nazem

People v. Nazem

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 1201·51 Cal. App. 4th 1225·59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 794·96 Daily Journal DAR 15625·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9389
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 23, 1996A068823California2,584 words

Opinion

Opinion

Corrigan, J.

Defendant contends his prosecution on narcotics charges was barred by the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution because of the completed forfeiture of money and property in a related civil action. We disagree and affirm.

Factual History

Inspector Hanley of the San Francisco Police Department received a phone call from United Parcel Service (UPS) indicating the company had received a package with an inadequate delivery address. An employee of UPS had opened the package and found $6,020 in cash and a note. Upon examining the note, Hanley concluded the cash was payment for a shipment of LSD. Hanley identified defendant as the intended recipient of the package.

On March 9, 1994, defendant was contacted by police and consented to a search of his home. Therein, officers found a large quantity of 3, 4-methyl-enedioxymethamphetamine, also known as MDMA or by its street name, Ecstasy. Additionally, officers found less than an ounce of marijuana, a loaded handgun, brass knuckles, paraphernalia consistent with the possession of MDMA for sale, and an additional $5,340 in cash. Apparently, officers also seized a watch and a cellular phone from defendant’s home.…

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.