United States v. One Ford Mustang 1971 Mach I
This text of 354 F. Supp. 81 (United States v. One Ford Mustang 1971 Mach I) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
After having conducted a court trial with respect to Action Number 72-1491-AAH on Monday, January 22, 1973, the Court having considered the testimony offered therein, as well as the pleadings, memoranda of points and authorities, affidavits, and other documents, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, now makes its findings of fact and conclusions of law, as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff, United States of America, has brought this action for forfeiture of Defendant automobile under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1345 1 claiming jurisdiction in this Court as a party plaintiff, and under 49 U.S.C. §§ 781-788
[84]*84seize and forfeit the automobile because it had been used by one Manzell Naisheck to facilitate transportation and sale of heroin, a narcotic drug, and contraband article within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. § 781, subjecting it to seizure and forfeiture under 49 U.S.C. § 782.
2. Defendant in this case is the 1971 Ford Mustang Mach I, California License Number 363 CPT, M/S Number 1F05M-126266, which was seized by Federal Narcotics Agents on December 9, 1971 and stored in the General Services Administration, but which is owned by the Claimant Helen O. Roberson, an indigent Black lady appearing in propria, persona.
3. Claimant Helen O. Roberson is separated from her husband but still married to him. She is living alone in a house rented from Manzell Naisheck, located at 3123 W. 59th Place, Los Angeles, California, 90043.
4. Claimant admits to two prior occasions when Naisheck drove the 1971 Ford Mustang. These instances were to take the claimant and her daughter to a movie. Naisheck each time drove the vehicle with the owner’s permission, and by using the extra key which she had given him when she first bought the car for safekeeping in order to avoid problems that might arise from locking it accidentally inside the car.
5. On the night of December 9, 1971, Claimant returned to the house from her school as usual about 4:30 p. m., parked the vehicle on the street in front and locked it.
Note 2 — Continued
6. Later that evening, Naisheck took the vehicle from the front of the house without the express or implied permission or consent of the owner. In fact she did not even know that he had taken it until informed by the authorities after his arrest. Naisheck obviously used the vehicle to facilitate the transportation and sale of heroin, but just as obviously he took it without her permission or consent and without her knowledge. Then, when Naisheck was arrested with heroin in the car, the Defendant Ford Mustang Mach I was seized by agents of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, Los Angeles, California. The car now is stored and located at the General Services Administration Storage Center, 5555 Eastern Avenue, Bell, California. Its appraised value is $3,500.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the cause of action alleged. 28 U.S.C. Section 1345, supra note 1.
2. Claimant has established beyond any reasonable doubt, and certainly by a clear preponderance of the evidence, which is all that is necessary in a civil case, that the Defendant Ford Mustang Mach I was on the evening of December 9, 1971, unlawfully in the possession of Manzell Naisheck, who acquired possession thereof in violation of the laws of the State of California.
[85]*853. Any forfeiture, therefore, would be in violation of 49 U.S.C. Section 782 3 since Naisheck’s acquisition of possession without the permission of the owner-Claimant was in violation of Section 499b of the California Penal Code.4 The possession further was without the owner-Claimant’s consent within the scope of Section 10851 of the California Vehicle Code,5 which provides that the “consent of the owner of a vehicle to its taking or driving shall not in any case be presumed or implied because of such owner’s consent on a previous occasion to the taking or driving of the vehicle by the same or a different person.”
4. We agree with the cases cited by the Government-Plaintiff, to the effect that the burden of proof is upon the owner-Claimant — United States v. Andrade, 181 F.2d 42, 45-46 (9th Cir. 1950) and United States v. Bride, 308 F.2d 470, 473-474 (9th Cir. 1962) and United States v. One 1962 Ford Galaxie Sedan, 236 F.Supp. 529, 531 (S.D.Cal. 1964, our esteemed Chief Judge Stephens writing). But, as we have demonstrated, the Claimant-owner here, Mrs. Roberson, has more than carried that burden. People v. Brown, 1 Cal.App.3d 161, 164, 81 Cal.Rptr. 401 (4th Dist., Div. One 1969) relating to P.C. Section 499b and other felonious takings of automobiles, and People v. Zervas, 61 Cal.App.2d 381, 142 P.2d 946 (1st Dist., Div. One) covering the “joyriding” statute, V.C. Section 10851.
5. Accordingly, Claimant-Owner, Helen O. Roberson, is entitled to the recovery of the Defendant Ford Mustang Mach I, California License No. 363 CPT, M/S Number 1F05M126266, its tools and appurtenances, and to the immediate ownership, title, possession, and custody of the said Defendant automobile.
Let judgment be entered accordingly and forthwith.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
354 F. Supp. 81, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-one-ford-mustang-1971-mach-i-cacd-1973.