## Facts

- David De La O was charged in municipal court with a misdemeanor alleging unlawful use of and addiction to narcotics under Health & Safety Code § 11721.
- He waived a jury trial, was found guilty, and his motion for new trial was denied.
- The municipal court suspended the criminal proceedings and certified him to superior court for narcotic-addict commitment proceedings under Penal Code § 6450; no criminal judgment imposing jail, fine, or other penal sanction was entered.
- In superior court, two physicians examined De La O, testified that he was a narcotic addict based on physical findings and his history of heroin use, and recommended commitment.
- The superior court ordered him committed to the California Rehabilitation Center under Penal Code §§ 6400–6555.
- De La O filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the constitutionality of the commitment statutes and arguing he was entitled to appellate review of the commitment order.

## Issues

1. Whether Penal Code § 6450 and the narcotics addict commitment program are unconstitutional (including due process, vagueness, cruel and unusual punishment, double jeopardy, and related claims).
2. Whether a commitment under § 6450 is a criminal punishment or a civil, remedial confinement for treatment.
3. Whether a person committed under § 6450 is entitled to appellate review of the superior court’s commitment order.

## Decision

- Habeas relief was denied, and the order to show cause was discharged; De La O’s commitment remained in effect.
- The statutory scheme authorizing commitment of narcotic addicts (and those in imminent danger of addiction) was upheld as constitutional.
- The commitment was characterized as civil and treatment-oriented, not criminal punishment, defeating double-jeopardy and multiple-punishment arguments.
- The court recognized that a committed person is entitled to appellate review of the superior court’s commitment order, though that recognition did not require release on habeas.

## Legal Principles

- A legislature may authorize involuntary confinement for narcotics addiction as an exercise of the police power when the program’s primary purpose and effect are treatment and public protection rather than retribution.
- Commitment to a treatment facility under a statutory rehabilitation program is treated as civil in nature even if it entails physical confinement and institutional rules.
- Where criminal proceedings are suspended and no penal judgment is imposed, a subsequent treatment commitment is not a second criminal punishment for the same offense.
- Due process is satisfied when commitment is based on defined criteria applied through procedures that include medical examination and a judicial hearing with opportunity for representation and contest.
- Persons committed under such a program retain access to habeas corpus to test the legality of confinement, including whether they are in fact addicts (or in imminent danger of addiction).
- Commitment orders issued under the program are subject to appellate review.

## Conclusion

The court sustained California’s narcotics addict commitment program as a civil, rehabilitative confinement consistent with constitutional limits, denied habeas relief to the committed petitioner, and confirmed that commitment orders are appealable even though confinement is not treated as criminal punishment.


In re De La O, 59 Cal. 2d 128, 378 P.2d 793 (Cal. 1963)