STATE HIGH COURT BACKS OAKLAND VICE CRIME CAR SEIZURES Oakland's vehicle seizure ordinance, which lets the city confiscate cars allegedly used in soliciting drug deals or prostitution, has survived a state Supreme Court challenge, a ruling that will likely encourage similar laws in other cities. Over the dissents of Justices Stanley Mosk and Joyce Kennard, the court denied review Wednesday of an appellate ruling in July that upheld the law. That ruling is binding on trial courts statewide. City and county governments across California were following the case closely, although only Sacramento has a law like Oakland's. San Francisco Supervisor Amos Brown, who proposed a similar measure last year, revived his plan after the July appellate ruling, saying it would rid poor neighborhoods of outsiders seeking to buy drugs and sex. But he was outvoted 8-3 last month by fellow supervisors, who said the proposal was unfair because it would allow vehicle seizures without criminal convictions and wouldn't entitle owners to lawyers when they tried to get their cars back. Congress has also been restricting federal forfeiture laws. A law approved this April, with conservative backing, entitles vehicle owners to legal representation before forfeiture in federal court and bars forfeiture if the owner was unaware of the crime. The Oakland ordinance allows police to seize cars whose drivers try to buy drugs or solicit prostitution within city limits. If the city can prove in court that the car was being used for one of those illegal purposes, the vehicle can be sold at auction, and the proceeds split between police and prosecutors. Cars can be forfeited regardless of whether anyone is ever prosecuted for a crime or whether the owner was aware of illegal activity. Proof is required by a majority of the evidence, rather than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard needed for a criminal conviction. Deputy City Attorney Marcia Meyers said the city has seized more than 300 vehicles since January 1998, mostly from non-Oakland residents. She said most owners buy back their cars, at a price determined by such things as hardship and whether the owner knew about the illegal activity. The Legislature passed a bill last fall that would have banned such ordinances, but Gov. Davis vetoed it. The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, contended the ordinance conflicted with existing state laws on vehicle forfeitures. Those laws allow authorities to seize cars used by drug dealers, but only if certain quantities were involved, someone was convicted of a crime and the owner knew of the drug use. Another law allows cars to be impounded for up to 48 hours, but not confiscated and sold, if the driver solicited prostitution. In a 3-0 ruling July 24, the 1st District Court of Appeal said the state laws did not prohibit cities and counties from passing stricter forfeiture ordinances. "The Oakland ordinance will adversely affect only those who use their cars to solicit prostitution or buy drugs in Oakland, matters of serious concern to the city," said the opinion by Justice Carol Corrigan. The state Supreme Court appeal, by ACLU lawyer Alan Schlosser, argued that local forfeiture ordinances conflict with the need for "fair and equal treatment for property owners throughout the state" and encourage bounty-hunting by police to boost their budgets. Schlosser said Wednesday's court action was disappointing but didn't resolve all the legal issues. He said one Oakland judge has ruled that seizure of a $5,000 truck was a disproportionate penalty for a $20 marijuana purchase, and an appellate court may soon address a similar case.
No member comments available...
|