Opinion ID: 2576097
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: relevant cases

Text: Two Court of Appeal decisions deserve discussion because, as in this case, they involved the applicability of Health and Safety Code sections 11470.1 and 11470.2 when a governmental entity seeks recovery of its costs of hazardous substance cleanup. Neither opinion was cited by the Court of Appeal here. In Narron, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d 724, 237 Cal.Rptr. 693, the defendant pleaded guilty to cultivating marijuana and was ordered by the trial court, as a condition of probation (Pen.Code, former § 1203.1), to pay the county's costs of cleaning up hazardous chemicals found during a search of his mobile home. ( Narron, supra, at p. 729, 237 Cal.Rptr. 693.) On appeal, the defendant challenged the restitution condition, arguing that the county's exclusive remedy for recouping its cleanup costs was to comply with either section 11470.1 or section 11470.2 of the Health and Safety Code. The Court of Appeal in Narron concluded that if the Legislature had intended to permit government recoupment of cleanup costs by way of a restitution probation condition, it would have had no reason to enact the two Health and Safety Code sections. ( Narron, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at p. 739, 237 Cal.Rptr. 693.) The court explained: Prior to the legislation, such costs were recoverable only upon a criminal conviction, and then only as a part of a restitution condition where probation was granted. ( Id. at p. 740, 237 Cal.Rptr. 693.) It noted that Health and Safety Code sections 11470.1 and 11470.2 represent a balancing of two competing concerns reflected in the legislative history of the two statutesthat law enforcement not go unreimbursed for controlled substance eradication or clean-up costs and that defendants receive certain procedural protections before reimbursement can be imposed. ( Narron, supra, at p. 739, 237 Cal.Rptr. 693.) For example, a criminal defendant who contests a petition for recovery filed in the prosecution for a drug offense is entitled to a jury trial before recovery can be granted (Health & Saf. Code, § 11470.2, subd. (d)); and if the People bring a civil action against a person who aids, abets, or profits from controlled substance manufacture, that defendant is entitled to have liability proven by clear and convincing evidence (§ 11470.1, subd. (e)(1)). Given the contrast between these strict procedural requirementsfiling a formal petition, requiring a jury trial on the petition's allegations, imposing an elevated standard of proof for aiders and abettorsand the informal procedures used in awarding restitution under the Penal Code, the Narron court concluded that if the stringent procedures of the Health and Safety Code were discretionary, governmental agencies would not use them. ( Narron, supra, at pp. 738-739, 237 Cal.Rptr. 693.) Accordingly, the Court of Appeal concluded that Health and Safety Code sections 11470.1 and 11470.2 provided the exclusive remedy for reimbursement of the expenses that were recoverable by the county. ( Narron, supra, at p. 729, 237 Cal.Rptr. 693.) In Brach, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th 571, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 753, the defendants pleaded guilty to cultivating and possessing marijuana for sale, and they were granted probation. One condition of their probation required them to reimburse the county sheriff's department for its costs in destroying the marijuana crop. On appeal, the defendants challenged the restitution order, arguing it was infirm because the sheriff's department had not complied with Health and Safety Code sections 11470.1 or 11470.2. ( Brach, supra, at p. 576, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 753.) The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the two Health and Safety Code sections provide `the exclusive remedy for reimbursement of the expenses recoverable under these statutes.' ( Ibid., quoting Narron, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at p. 729, 237 Cal.Rptr. 693.) It upheld the order, because, despite having notice that the sheriff's department was requesting restitution under Health and Safety Code section 11470.2, defendants had entered into the plea agreement without objecting to the probation condition requiring restitution. ( Brach, supra, at p. 577, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 753.)