People v. $1,930 United States Currency
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Woods, J.
The People appeal from an order dismissing their action for civil forfeiture (in relation to controlled substances) on the basis that there was no current forfeiture law in effect. The People contend that there was a forfeiture law in effect at the time of the January 1994 dismissal. We agree and reverse with directions.
Factual and Procedural Synopsis
I. Background to The Superior Court Proceedings
On September 27, 1993, claimant Jose Martinez Trejo was arrested and booked on charges of violating Health and Safety Code section 1 11351 (possession of cocaine for sale.) As a result of that arrest, Trejo’s property in the amount of $1,930 in United States currency was seized.
II. Superior Court Actions
The People filed two separate actions relating to Trejo.
A. Criminal Action
On October 28, 1993, the People executed a felony complaint (People v. Trejo (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 1993, No. BA-085582)), charging Trejo with various offenses committed on September 27, including possession of cocaine for sale, conspiracy to possess cocaine for sale and conspiracy to possess over $25,000 derived from controlled substance offenses. Various special allegations were…
Concurring Opinion
Johnson, J.
I concur in the judgment but write separately to register my views as to what the trial court must determine at its hearing on remand. I agree with the Ninth Circuit cases cited but disapproved in the majority opinion, in particular U.S. v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency (9th Cir. 1994) 33 F.3d 1210 . Those opinions require the prosecution to prove the forfeiture it seeks will serve solely remedial purposes. To the extent the forfeiture exceeds the amount justified as remedial, the excess amount constitutes punishment. As such, it is governed by principles of double jeopardy and cannot be collected if the defendant already has suffered a criminal penalty for the same offense. (United States v. Halper (1989) 490 U.S. 435, 448-449 [ 104 L.Ed.2d 487, 501-502 , 109 S.Ct. 1892 ] [“. . . a defendant who already has been punished in a criminal prosecution may not be subjected to an additional civil sanction to the extent that the second sanction may not fairly be characterized as remedial, but only as a deterrent or retribution.”].) To avoid double jeopardy, a trial court could and would have to reduce the forfeiture to an amount reasonably related to a solely remedial purpose.
Accordingly,…
Opinion
Michael P. Judge, Public Defender, Albert J. Menaster and Kathy Quant, Deputy Public Defenders, for Claimant and Respondent.
OPINION
WOODS (Fred), J.
The People appeal from an order dismissing their action for civil forfeiture (in relation to controlled substances) on the basis that there was no current forfeiture law in effect. The People contend that there was a forfeiture law in effect at the time of the January 1994 dismissal. We agree and reverse with directions.
On September 27, 1993, claimant Jose Martinez Trejo was arrested and booked on charges of violating Health and Safety Code section [1] 11351 (possession of cocaine for sale.) As a result of that arrest, Trejo's property in the amount of $1,930 in United States currency was seized.
The People filed two separate actions relating to Trejo.
On October 28, 1993, the People executed a felony complaint (People v. Trejo (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 1993, No. BA-085582)), charging Trejo with various offenses committed on September 27, including possession of cocaine for sale, conspiracy to possess cocaine for sale and conspiracy to possess over $25,000 derived from controlled substance offenses. Various special…