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.