Cuevas v. Superior Court
221 Cal. App. 4th 1312
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- This is a California asset-forfeiture case under Health and Safety Code §§11470–11489, evaluating who must initiate forfeiture and whether notice compliance is strict.
- Cash totaling $16,866.99 was seized from Cuevas and Aguirre after a narcotics-related stop; Aguirre’s $3,990 and $5,862.62 were later disclaimed by Cuevas.
- A Notice of Nonjudicial Forfeiture Proceedings was served on Cuevas by a Tulare police officer, listing $16,871.99 seized for a violation of Health and Safety Code §11379.
- The Tulare County District Attorney never initiated the administrative forfeiture; a DA/AG is statutorily required to initiate nonjudicial forfeiture proceedings.
- Cuevas did not file a claim; the DA published notices of forfeiture and executed a declaration of nonjudicial forfeiture; petition for return of currency followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a peace officer initiate forfeiture proceedings? | Cuevas: initiation must be by prosecuting agency. | People: delegation of notice permissible; officer can notify. | No; initiation must be by prosecuting agency. |
| Is notice by a peace officer valid under §11488.4? | Notice must be by DA/AG; officer-led notice invalid. | Actual notice to Cuevas suffices if he ignored it. | Invalid; prosecuting agency must provide notice. |
| Is the notice facially defective regarding property identity and value? | Discrepancies in amount and ownership undermine notice. | Total value referenced is acceptable and notices were substantial. | Defective; misidentified property and inconsistent value render notice invalid. |
| Is the place of seizure and publication proper in the notice? | Notice correctly identifies seizure location and publication appears proper. | Seizure location and venue differ; publication relies on defective data. | Defective; place of seizure and publication fail to meet statutory requirements. |
| Does referencing the wrong offense defeat forfeiture? | Notice should reflect the forfeiture-triggering offense; reference to 11379 matters. | Connection to 11379 is sufficient for forfeiture purposes. | Defective; notice must allege a forfeiture-eligible offense, not a nonforfeitable one. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nasir v. Sacramento County Off. of the Dist. Atty., 11 Cal.App.4th 976 (1992) (strict construction in favor of property owner; defects fatal)
- People v. $10,153.38 in United States Currency, 179 Cal.App.4th 1520 (2009) (forfeiture statutes disfavored; strict compliance required)
- People v. $400, 17 Cal.App.4th 1615 (1993) (only two individuals authorized to initiate forfeiture)
- People v. Plascencia, 103 Cal.App.4th 409 (2002) (due process and notice requirements in forfeiture)
- Baca v. Minier, 229 Cal.App.3d 1253 (1991) (jurisdiction and due process in administrative forfeiture context)