BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
7
0
8
AB 708 (Huffman)
As Amended June 26, 2009
Hearing date: July 7, 2009
Fish and Game Code
MK:mc
FISH AND WILDLIFE: POACHING
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 1187 (DeSaulnier) - Chapter 328, Stats.
2007
Support: California Fish and Game Wardens' Association; San
Francisco District Attorney; Audubon California;
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance; Ocean Conservancy
Opposition:American Civil Liberties Union
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 77 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD FINES BE INCREASED FOR ILLEGALLY TAKING, POSSESSING,
IMPORTING, EXPORTING, SELLING, PURCHASING, BARTERING, TRADING OR
EXCHANGING ANY AMPHIBIAN, BIRD, FISH, MAMMAL OR REPTILE FOR
PROFIT OR PERSONAL GAIN? SHOULD 50 PERCENT OF THE FINES GO TO
THE COUNTY TO FIRST BE USED TO REIMBURSE THE PROSECUTOR?
(More)
AB 708 (Huffman)
PageB
(CONTINUED)
SHOULD IT BE ILLEGAL TO POSSESS IN THE FIELD MORE THAN THREE TIMES
THE DAILY BAG LIMIT, OR POSSESS MORE THAN THREE TIMES THE LEGAL
POSSESSION LIMIT OF FISH, REPTILES, BIRDS, AMPHIBIANS, OR MAMMALS?
SHOULD 50 PERCENT OF THE FINES GO TO THE COUNTY TO FIRST BE USED TO
REIMBURSE THE PROSECUTOR?
SHOULD FORFEITURE BE PERMITTED IN CASES WHERE SOMEONE ILLEGALLY
TAKES, POSSESSES, IMPORTS, EXPORTS, SELLS, PURCHASES, BARTERS,
TRADES OR EXCHANGES ANY AMPHIBIAN, BIRD, FISH, MAMMAL OR REPTILE FOR
PROFIT OR PERSONAL GAIN?
SHOULD FORFEITURE BE PERMITTED WHEN SOMEONE ILLEGALLY TAKES OR
POSSESSES IN THE FIELD MORE THAN THREE TIMES THE DAILY BAG LIMIT, OR
ILLEGALLY POSSESSES MORE THAN THREE TIMES THE LEGAL POSSESSION LIMIT
OF FISH, REPTILES, BIRDS, AMPHIBIANS, OR MAMMALS?
PURPOSE
The purpose of the bill is to increase specified penalties for
illegally taking fish, amphibians, mammals, birds or reptiles
and to provide for forfeiture in these cases.
Existing law provides that the knowing unlawful taking for
commercial purposes of a mammal, bird, amphibian, reptile, fish,
or any other species in violation of this code is an offense
punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than
one year, by a fine of not more than thirty thousand dollars
($30,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine. This
subdivision does not apply to a person issued a commercial
fishing license pursuant to Section 7852 who takes finfish in an
amount that is less than 1,000 pounds more than the amount of
fish authorized by the applicable statute or regulation. (Fish
and Game Code 12012 (a).)
(More)
AB 708 (Huffman)
PageC
Existing law provides that the knowing unlawful possession for
commercial purposes of any part of a mountain lion, bear, wild
pig, bighorn sheep, elk, antelope, or deer, a pelt of a
furbearing mammal, a live reptile or amphibian, any fully
protected, threatened, or endangered species, or any quantity of
fish or shellfish in excess of the quantity permitted by other
provisions of this code is an offense punishable by imprisonment
in the county jail for not more than one year, by a fine of not
more than thirty thousand dollars ($30,000), or by both that
imprisonment and fine. This subdivision does not apply to a
person issued a commercial fishing license pursuant to Section
7852 or a commercial fish business license pursuant to Article 7
(commencing with Section 8030) of Chapter 1 of Part 3 of
Division 6 who possesses finfish in an amount that is less than
1,000 pounds more than the amount of finfish authorized by the
applicable statute or regulation. (Fish and Game Code
12012(b).)
Existing law provides that the knowing unlawful sale in
violation of this code for commercial purposes, or the unlawful
possession with the intent to sell in violation of this code, of
any part of, or product made from, any wildlife is an offense
punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than
one year, by a fine of not more than thirty thousand dollars
($30,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine. This
subdivision applies only to a person who knowingly acquires for
commercial purposes any part of, or product made from, any
unlawfully taken wildlife. (Fish and Game Code 12012 (c).)
Existing law provides that whenever a second or subsequent
violation of subdivision (a), (b), or (c) also involves a
violation of specified sections prohibiting "gill nets" which is
punishable by a wobbler under subdivision (b) of Section 12004,
the offense shall be punishable by a fine of not more than
thirty thousand dollars ($30,000), or by imprisonment pursuant
to subdivision (b) of Section 12004, or by both that fine and
imprisonment. (Fish and Game Code 12012(d)(1).)
Existing law provides that whenever a second or subsequent
violation of subdivision (a), (b), or (c) also involves a
(More)
AB 708 (Huffman)
PageD
violation of Section 4758 which is punishable pursuant to
subdivision (a) of Section 12005, the offense shall be
punishable by a fine of not more than thirty thousand dollars
($30,000), or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (a) of
Section 12005, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (Fish and
Game Code 12012(d)(2).)
Existing law provides that notwithstanding Section 802 of the
Penal Code, prosecution of an offense punishable under this
section shall be commenced within three years after commission
of the offense. (Fish and Game Code 12012(e).)
Existing law uses the following definitions:
"Commercial purposes" means import, export, sale,
purchase, barter, trade, exchange, or possession for profit
or personal gain.
"Fish" means fish as defined by Section 45.
"Wildlife" means wildlife as defined by Section 711.2.
(Fish and Game Code 12012 (f).)
This bill redrafts the existing Fish and Game Code Section 12012
providing instead that notwithstanding any other provision of
this code, except as provided in subdivision (e) or (f), any
person who illegally takes, possesses, imports, exports, sells,
purchases, barters, trades, or exchanges any amphibian, bird,
fish, mammal, or reptile or part thereof, for profit or personal
gain is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less
than $5,000 ($18,500 with penalty assessments), nor more than
$40,000 ($148,000 with penalty assessments), or imprisonment in
the county jail for not more than one year, or by both fine and
imprisonment.
This bill further provides that if a person is convicted of a
second or subsequent violation of section 12012, that person
shall be punished by a fine of not less than $10,000 ($37,000
with penalty assessments), nor more than $50,000 ($185,000 with
penalty assessments).
This bill increases the fine to for a second or subsequent
violation of section 12012 and specified violations involving
(More)
AB 708 (Huffman)
PageE
"gill nets" to up to $50,000 ($185,000 with penalty
assessments).
Existing law specifies what expenditures from the fish and
wildlife propagation fund of any county may be used on. (Fish
and Game Code 13103.)
This bill provides that moneys equivalent to 50 percent of the
revenue deposited in the Fish and Game Preservation Fund from
fines and forfeitures collected pursuant to this section shall
be allocated for the support of the Special Operations Unit of
the Department and used for law enforcement purposes.
This bill provides that moneys equivalent to 50 percent of the
revenue from any fine or forfeiture collected pursuant to this
section shall be paid to the county in which the offense was
committed, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 13003. The
board of supervisors shall first use revenues pursuant to this
subdivision to reimburse the costs incurred by the district
attorney or city attorney in investigating and prosecuting the
violation. Any excess revenues may be expended in accordance
with Section 13103.
Existing law provides that in addition to any other penalty
prescribed by law, any person convicted of a violation
punishable under subdivision (a) of Section 12012 relating to
wildlife, except fish, is prohibited from thereafter taking
wildlife, except fish, in this state for a period of not less
than one year from the date of conviction. In determining the
length of the prohibition imposed pursuant to this subdivision,
the court shall take into consideration the gravity of the
offense for which the person was convicted, including, but not
limited to, whether the species was illegally taken for
commercial purposes, the magnitude of the offense, damage to the
species as a resource in the geographic area where taken,
previous convictions for violations of this code, and the
motivation of the person convicted. Any license, permit, tag,
stamp, or other entitlement to take or possess wildlife, except
fish, for any purpose other than for commercial purposes that
has previously been issued to that person shall be immediately
(More)
AB 708 (Huffman)
PageF
revoked by the court and that person, during the period of the
prohibition, shall not apply for a license, permit, tag, stamp,
or other entitlement to take or possess wildlife, except fish,
for any purpose other than for commercial purposes. (Fish and
Game Code 12013(a).)
Existing law provides that in addition to any other penalty
prescribed by law, any person convicted of a violation
punishable under subdivision (a) of Section 12012 relating to
fish is prohibited from thereafter taking or possessing fish in
this state for a period of not less than one year from the date
of conviction. In determining the length of the prohibition
imposed pursuant to this subdivision, the court shall take into
consideration the gravity of the offense for which the person
was convicted, including, but not limited to, such factors as
whether the species was illegally taken for commercial purposes,
the magnitude of the offense, damage to the species as a
resource in the geographic area where taken, previous
convictions for violations of this code, and the motivation of
the person convicted. Any license, permit, tag, stamp, or other
entitlement to take or possess fish for any purpose other than
for commercial purposes that has previously been issued to that
person shall be immediately revoked and that person, during the
period of the prohibition, shall not apply for a license,
permit, tag, stamp, or other entitlement to take or possess fish
for any purpose other than for commercial purposes. As used in
this section, "commercial purposes" means for profit or personal
gain, "fish" means fish as defined by Section 45, and "wildlife"
means wildlife as defined by Section 711.2. (Fish and Game Code
12013(b).)
Existing law provides that Fish and Game Code section 12013 does
not apply to any person who is licensed to take any fish or
wildlife for commercial purposes and does not supersede or
otherwise affect any other provision of this code or regulations
adopted pursuant to this code relating to issuing, suspending,
or revoking licenses or other entitlements to take, possess,
buy, or sell wildlife or fish for commercial purposes. (Fish
and Game Code 12013 (c).)
(More)
AB 708 (Huffman)
PageG
This bill repeals the existing provisions in Fish and Game Code
section 12013.
This bill provides that notwithstanding any other provision of
this code, except as specified, any person who illegally takes
or possesses in the field more than three times the daily bag
limit, or who illegally possesses more than three times the
legal possession limit, of fish, reptiles, birds, amphibians, or
mammals is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a
fine of not less than $5,000 (plus penalty assessments equals
$18,500), nor more than $40,000 (plus penalty assessments equals
$148,000), or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than
one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
This bill provides that a person convicted of a second or
subsequent violation of the offense described above, that person
shall be punished by a fine of not less $10,000 (plus penalty
assessments equals $37,000), nor more than $50,000 (plus penalty
assessments equals $185,000), or imprisonment in the county jail
for not more than one year, or by both that fine and
imprisonment.
This bill provides that notwithstanding any other provision of
this code, except as specified, any person who maliciously or
intentionally maims, mutilates, or tortures any fish, reptile,
bird, amphibian, or mammal provided for in this code is guilty
of a crime punishable as described above.
This bill provides that nothing in these provisions affects any
legal hunting, fishing, or trapping activity, including, but not
limited to, efforts to dispatch a wounded mammal, bird, or fish
taken legally.
This bill further provides that nothing in these provisions
prohibits a person from giving, receiving, or possessing the
(More)
AB 708 (Huffman)
PageH
legal possession limit of lawfully taken fish, reptiles, birds,
amphibians, or mammals.
This bill provides that nothing in this section prohibits a
person from giving, receiving, or possessing, at the personal
abode of the donor or donee, lawfully taken migratory game birds
that are not required to be tagged pursuant to the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. Sec.703 et seq.) or
regulations adopted pursuant to that act.
This bill provides that this section does not supersede Sections
12005, 12006.6, or 12009.
This bill provides that moneys equivalent to 50 percent of the
revenue from any fine or forfeiture collected pursuant to this
section shall be paid to the county in which the offense was
committed and provides that the board of supervisors shall first
use revenues pursuant to this subdivision to reimburse the costs
incurred by the district attorney or city attorney in
investigating and prosecuting the violation. Any excess
revenues may be expended in accordance with specified existing
law.
Existing law provides that upon the third conviction of any
person of a violation of any provision of this code or
regulation adopted pursuant thereto relating to the taking or
possession of fish, reptiles, or amphibia, or parts thereof, in
any five-year period, and upon any conviction subsequent to the
three convictions during a five-year period, that person shall
be prohibited from taking any fish, reptiles, or amphibia in the
state for three years from the date of the last conviction. The
commission shall revoke the sport fishing license of the person
who is prohibited from taking fish, reptiles, or amphibia in
this state, if he or she has one, for the period of prohibition.
It shall be unlawful for any person to obtain, or attempt to
obtain, a sport fishing license during a period of prohibition.
(Fish and Game Code 12154.)
(More)
AB 708 (Huffman)
PageI
This bill provides that upon a conviction of a violation of
Section 12012 or 12013, the department may suspend or
permanently revoke a person's hunting or sport fishing license
or permit privileges. Any person whose privileges are suspended
or revoked pursuant to this section may appeal the suspension or
revocation to the commission. The commission shall initiate the
appeal process within 12 months of the violator's appeal
request. The department may adopt regulations to implement this
subdivision.
This bill provides that pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
12157, a judge may order the seizure or forfeiture of any device
or apparatus, including a vessel, vehicle, or hunting or fishing
gear that is used in committing an offense punishable under
Sections 12012 or 12013.
Existing law provides that for any conviction of a violation of
the Fish and Game Code, the court may order the forfeiture of
any device or apparatus that is designed to be, or is capable of
being used to take birds, mammals, fish, reptiles or amphibian
and that was used in committing the offense charged. (Fish and
Game Code 12157.)
Existing law also provides for the forfeiture, upon conviction
of specified offenses of any device or apparatus that is used in
committing the offense, including, but not limited to any
vehicle used for the intended offense. The specified offenses
are:
section 2000 relating to deer, elk, antelope, feral
pigs, European wild boars, black bears and brown or
cinnamon bears;
any offense that involves the sale, purchase, or
possession of abalone for commercial purposes; and
(More)
AB 708 (Huffman)
PageJ
any offense that involves the sale, purchase or
possession of sturgeon or lobster, pursuant to Section 7370
or 8254. (Fish and Game 12157.)
This bill adds to the existing forfeiture provisions violations
of Fish and Game Code sections 12012 or 12013.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
California continues to face a severe prison overcrowding
crisis. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
currently has about 170,000 inmates under its jurisdiction. Due
to a lack of traditional housing space available, the department
houses roughly 15,000 inmates in gyms and dayrooms.
California's prison population has increased by 125% (an average
of 4% annually) over the past 20 years, growing from 76,000
inmates to 171,000 inmates, far outpacing the state's population
growth rate for the age cohort with the highest risk of
incarceration.<1>
In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against
CDCR sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population
pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On
February 9, 2009, the three-judge federal court panel issued a
tentative ruling that included the following conclusions with
respect to overcrowding:
No party contests that California's prisons are
overcrowded, however measured, and whether considered
in comparison to prisons in other states or jails
within this state. There are simply too many
----------------------
<1> "Between 1987 and 2007, California's population of ages 15
through 44 - the age cohort with the highest risk for
incarceration - grew by an average of less than 1% annually,
which is a pace much slower than the growth in prison
admissions." (2009-2010 Budget Analysis Series, Judicial and
Criminal Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (January 30,
2009).)
(More)
AB 708 (Huffman)
PageK
prisoners for the existing capacity. The Governor,
the principal defendant, declared a state of emergency
in 2006 because of the "severe overcrowding" in
California's prisons, which has caused "substantial
risk to the health and safety of the men and women who
work inside these prisons and the inmates housed in
them." . . . A state appellate court upheld the
Governor's proclamation, holding that the evidence
supported the existence of conditions of "extreme
peril to the safety of persons and property."
(citation omitted) The Governor's declaration of the
state of emergency remains in effect to this day.
. . . the evidence is compelling that there is no
relief other than a prisoner release order that will
remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions.
. . .
Although the evidence may be less than perfectly
clear, it appears to the Court that in order to
alleviate the constitutional violations California's
inmate population must be reduced to at most 120% to
145% of design capacity, with some institutions or
clinical programs at or below 100%. We caution the
parties, however, that these are not firm figures and
that the Court reserves the right - until its final
ruling - to determine that a higher or lower figure is
appropriate in general or in particular types of
facilities.
. . .
Under the PLRA, any prisoner release order that we
issue will be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the violation of constitutional
rights, and be the least intrusive means necessary to
correct the violation of those rights. For this
reason, it is our present intention to adopt an order
requiring the State to develop a plan to reduce the
(More)
AB 708 (Huffman)
PageL
prison population to 120% or 145% of the prison's
design capacity (or somewhere in between) within a
period of two or three years.<2>
The final outcome of the panel's tentative decision, as well as
any appeal that may be in response to the panel's final
decision, is unknown at the time of this writing.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Not since the early 1900s has the state experienced such
high levels of poaching. The most recent statistics
show that between 2005 and 2007, poaching-related
violations increased by 25 percent.
California is particularly susceptible to poaching
because the current fines and penalties for poaching
violations have proved insufficient to serve as an
effective deterrent. Currently, there are no minimum
mandatory fines for serious poaching violations and
according to the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) many
violators are fined only very small amounts - and not
enough to deter a poacher that is financially profiting
from the activity. Also California has less than 200
game wardens on active duty which is not sufficient to
patrol a state with thousands of miles of mountains and
coastline.
-----------------------
<2> Three Judge Court Tentative Ruling, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (Feb. 9, 2009).
(More)
AB 708 (Huffman)
PageM
Basically it "pays to poach" in California.
The maximum fines are small -- only $1,000
or $2,000;
There are no minimum fines for serious
poaching violations;
The chances of getting caught are low
because California has less than 200 field wardens
statewide;
And local prosecutors have too many demands
to fully prosecute the cases that wardens bring
forward.
2. Changes in Penalties
a. Taking for a commercial purpose.
Under existing law, any person who illegally takes, possesses,
imports, exports, sells, purchases, barters, trades or
exchanges any amphibian, bird, fish, mammal or reptile for
profit or personal gain is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable
by up to one year in county jail and or a fine up to $30,000.
With the existing approximately 270 percent penalty
assessments this makes the current fine up to $111,000.<3>
The supporters of this bill argue that since there is no
minimum fine stated, often the fines given in these cases are
small. This bill would impose a minimum fine of $5,000 and a
maximum fine of $40,000. With penalty assessments the fines
would actually be a minimum of $18,500 and a maximum of
$148,000. A person convicted of a second or subsequent
offense shall be punished by a fine of not less than $10,000
(with assessments $37,000) nor more than $50,000 (with
--------------------------
<3> Until the budget year 2002-2003, there was 170 percent in
penalty assessments applied to every fine, the current penalty
assessments are approximately 270 percent. (See Penal Code
1464; Penal Code 1465.7; Penal Code 1465.8; Government Code
70372; Government Code 7600.5; Government Code 76000 et
seq; Government Code 76104.6.)
(More)
AB 708 (Huffman)
PageN
assessments $185,000).
SHOULD THE FINES FOR ILLEGALLY TAKING FISH, AMPHIBIAN, MAMMALS
OR REPTILES FOR COMMERCIAL GAIN BE INCREASED AND A MINIMUM
FINE IMPOSED?
b. Three times the bag limit or legal limit.
This bill also makes it unlawful for any person to illegally
take or possesses in the field more than three times the daily
bag limit, or who illegally possesses more than three times
the legal possession limit of fish, reptiles, birds,
amphibians, or mammals. The penalty will be a misdemeanor
with a minimum fine of not less than $5,000 (with assessments
$18,500) and a maximum of $40,000 (with assessments $148,000)
and/ up to one year in county jail. A second or subsequent
violation would be a fine of $10,000 (with assessments
$37,000) to $50,000 (with assessments $185,000) and/or up to a
year in county jail. These penalties would also apply to any
person who maliciously or intentionally maims, mutilates, or
tortures any fish reptile, bird, amphibian, or mammal provided
for in this code.
SHOULD FINES OF $5,000-$40,000 BE CREATED FOR A PERSON WHO
ILLEGALLY TAKES MORE THAN THREE TIMES THE DAILY BAG LIMIT?
3. Distribution of Fines
(More)
Under existing law, 50 percent of fine revenues from Fish and
Game Code Violations go to the county in which the violation
occurs (Fish and Game Code 13003) and the county must expend
the funds for the protection, conservation, propagation, and
preservation of fish and wildlife (Fish and Game Code
13100-13103). Specific uses include the temporary emergency
treatment and care of injured or orphaned wildlife, public
education, and costs incurred by the district attorney or city
attorney in investigating and prosecuting civil and criminal
actions for violations of the Fish and Game Code. As amended in
the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water, this bill
provides that from the fine revenues from the sections in this
bill, moneys equivalent to 50 percent of the revenue from any
fine or forfeiture collected shall be paid to the county in
which the offense was committed pursuant to Fish and Game Code
Section 13003. The board of Supervisors shall first use the
revenues received to reimburse the costs incurred by the
district attorney or city attorney in investigating and
prosecuting the violation. Any excess revenues may be expended
in accordance with Fish and Game Code Section 13003.
The amendments in Natural Resources and Water were intended to
take care of the "bounty" issue that the bill originally created
by rewarding 50 percent of the fine revenues directly to the
prosecuting agency. This language instead provides that the
prosecuting agencies first be reimbursed for actual costs
incurred through the money collected but it is paid to them
through the county. Does this language adequately remove the
problems a bounty creates by potentially effecting a
prosecutor's judgment on what an appropriate fine should be?
4. Forfeiture Provisions
Under existing law a judge may order forfeiture of any device or
apparatus, including any vehicle used for or in committing Fish
and Game Code offenses relating to deer, elk, antelope, feral
pigs, European wild boars, black bears, brown or cinnamon bears,
abalone, sturgeon or lobster. This bill adds offenses involving
illegally taking, possessing, importing, exporting, selling,
(More)
AB 708 (Huffman)
PageP
purchasing, bartering trading or exchanging any amphibian, bird,
fish, mammal or reptile for profit and also adds a person who
illegally possesses three times the daily bag limit or more than
three times the legal possession limit of fish, reptiles, birds,
amphibians or mammals.
The existing law does say the court shall take into
consideration the nature, circumstances, etc., of the offense,
the culpability of the violator and the other penalties imposed
before ordering forfeiture. The court is also authorized to
consider the seriousness of the injury to natural resources or
property of another and any other relevant factor.
AB 1187 (DeSaulnier) Chapter 328, Stats. 2007, also amended the
forfeiture provisions so that they provide that a judge shall
not order the forfeiture of a vehicle if there is a community
property interest in the vehicle that is owned by a person other
than the defendant and the vehicle is the only vehicle available
to the defendant's immediate family that may be operated on the
highway. That bill expanded the forfeiture provisions to
include the possession of sturgeon or lobster but did not extend
forfeiture to specified bass species.
The expansion of the forfeiture to provisions in this bill apply
to people who are illegally taking for commercial purposes as
well as those who are over the limit. These provisions do not
apply solely to a species that is specifically over fished or
over hunted but to any fish, reptile, bird, amphibian or mammal
that a person may not legally sale or has taken more than a set
limit.
The ACLU opposes the forfeiture provisions in this bill stating:
Civil asset forfeiture laws raise serious civil
liberties concerns including the right to be free from
punishment that is disproportionate to the offense.
Even courts that have upheld forfeiture laws have
recognized that they are "the harshest of all our laws
respecting ownership of private property" Nasir v.
Sacramento County Office of the District Attorney, 11
AB 708 (Huffman)
PageQ
Cal. App. 4th 976, 985 (1992).
AB 708 significantly expands the authority to forfeit
vessels or vehicles used in the commission of certain
violations, including possession of more than three
times the bag limit for any fish or mammal or illegally
possessing any amount of fish or mammal for profit or
personal gain. The proposed forfeiture expansions are
disproportionate to the underlying offenses. The
Legislature has been careful to authorize asset
forfeiture only for major crimes as evidenced by the
drug asset forfeiture laws that permit forfeiture only
for serious drug felonies involving large amounts of
drugs. We urge amendments taken removing this provision
from the bill.
SHOULD THOSE FOUND TO HAVE OVER THE SET LIMITS BE TREATED THE
SAME AS THOSE WHO ARE TAKING ILLEGALLY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES?
SHOULD FORFEITURE BE LIMITED TO THOSE CASES WHERE A PERSON IS
PROFITING FROM THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY?
SHOULD FORFEITURE BE PERMITTED IN CASES WHERE SOMEONE ILLEGALLY
TAKES, POSSESSES, IMPORTS, EXPORTS, SELLS, PURCHASES, BARTERS,
TRADES OR EXCHANGES ANY AMPHIBIAN, BIRD, FISH, MAMMAL OR REPTILE
FOR PROFIT OR PERSONAL GAIN?
SHOULD FORFEITURE BE PERMITTED WHEN SOMEONE ILLEGALLY TAKES OR
POSSESSES IN THE FIELD MORE THAN THREE TIMES THE DAILY BAG
LIMIT, OR WHO ILLEGALLY POSSESSES MORE THAN THREE TIMES THE
LEGAL POSSESSION LIMIT OF FISH, REPTILES, BIRDS, AMPHIBIANS, OR
MAMMALS?
***************