Skip to content
Name: People v. $12,601.33 in U.S. Currency
Case #: B229202
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 09/10/2012

When seeking return of seized funds, defendant is entitled to amount taken plus interest actually earned, not interest at the legal rate. At the same time police seized drugs from appellant's hotel room, they impounded $10,153.38 in U.S. currency. Appellant was convicted of drug offenses and sent to prison. When the prosecution obtained summary judgment for forfeiture over two years after the criminal trial, appellant appealed because the forfeiture of the seized funds was not litigated in conjunction with the criminal case. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11488.4, subd. (i).) In the first appeal (People v. $10,153.38 in U. S.…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Hooper
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 10/12/2000
Subsequent History: None

The court affirmed the district court's denial of claims presented by the spouses of two convicted drug traffickers. The claimants requested relief from forfeiture of proceeds of trafficking under an "innocent spouse" theory. The court held that no such theory applied to prevent forfeiture of proceeds, except when the claimant was a bona fide purchaser who had no knowledge of the illegal activity. Here, the claimants were not bona fide purchasers. They only claimed a community property interest. The court noted the result may have been different had the property been "instrumentalities of crime," but the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. One Ruger .22 Caliber Pistol
Case #: B136093
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 10/24/2000
Subsequent History: Petn. rehg. den. 11/14/00; Petn. rev. den. 1/10/01

The court upheld under Welfare and Institutions Code section 8102 the forfeiture of a firearm from a person who had been detained for examination due to his mental condition and who was subsequently determined to be a danger to others. The court held that the law did not violate due process even though it required the person to file a pleading in the forfeiture action in order to preserve a claim. As the statute, as amended, provided for notice and a hearing, and assigned the burden to the People at that hearing, the statute was…

View Full Summary