Controlled substances.
Summary
Existing law provides that in all cases where property used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of specified controlled substance offenses is seized and forfeited to a state or local governmental entity and, where necessary, sold, the moneys forfeited or the proceeds of sale shall be distributed by the state or local governmental entity to specified persons or entities for specified purposes, including for the purpose of combating drug abuse. Existing law, the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, includes provisions authorizing the seizure and forfeiture of property involved in, or purchased with the proceeds from, a controlled substance offense. This bill would provide that property is deemed to be seized whenever any agency takes possession or control of it. The bill would add provisions that provide that seizing agencies or prosecuting attorneys authorized to bring civil forfeiture proceedings shall not directly or indirectly transfer seized property, including any property seized by state or local law enforcement officers who are detached to, deputized or commissioned by, or working in conjunction with, a federal agency to any federal agency or any governmental entity not created under and subject to state law, unless the court enters an order, as specified, authorizing the property to be transferred. The bill would provide that, where a state or local agency transfers seized property to any federal agency for forfeiture in violation of these provisions, the state or local agency shall be liable to the state in an action brought by the Attorney General or a private attorney for 24% of the proceeds received by the state or local agency from the federal government, to be deposited in the General Fund for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for drug prevention and treatment services, and would authorize the recovery of the costs of the suit by the Attorney General or the private attorney.
Bill status
passed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2011
Committee Review
Aug 2012
Assembly Passage
Jun 2011
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 16, 2011
Last action Aug 16, 2012
Floor votes · Assembly Jun 1, 2011
How they voted
57–7
Passed · 6 other
Total votes 70
Jun 1, 2011
D
Democratic44
86% Yea
R
Republican26
73% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
20
Key actions
6
Committee
11
Amendments
1
Aug 16, 2012
Upper · Passed
In committee: Held under submission.
upper
Aug 6, 2012
Committee
In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
upper
Aug 15, 2011
Upper · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
upper
Jul 6, 2011
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 2.) (July 5). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Jun 20, 2011
Upper · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
upper
Jun 8, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
Jun 1, 2011
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (57-7-6)
assembly
May 27, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 16. Noes 1.) (May 27).
lower
May 11, 2011
Committee
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
Apr 27, 2011
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (April 26). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Apr 4, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Mar 31, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Feb 17, 2011
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 19.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
CN
Chris Norby
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 639
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 639. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline