SUPERVISORS REJECT PLAN TO TAKE SUSPECTS' CARS

Idea Was To Cut Prostitution, Drug Deals

San Francisco -- Citing concerns about depriving people of their rights,
San Francisco supervisors easily defeated a plan yesterday to seize the
vehicles of those arrested for involvement in prostitution or drug dealing.

The idea, modeled after a 3-year- old program in Oakland, was proposed by
Supervisor Amos Brown, who said drug dealing and street prostitution have
made some areas of San Francisco almost unlivable. In fact, authorities
suspect that part of the problem is that Oakland's program has been so
successful that criminals from that city and elsewhere in the Bay Area have
moved their operations to San Francisco.

Opponents of Brown's plan said they sympathize with the plight of residents
in such areas as the Mission District, Western Addition, Ocean View-Merced
Heights-Ingleside and Bayview-Hunters Point. But they also said they fear
the plan would erode the rights of people who are accused but not convicted
of crimes. The board defeated the plan 8 to 3, with Brown and Supervisors
Barbara Kaufman and Mabel Teng voting for it.

Brown, who is battling prostate cancer, would have none of it.

"This matter is like cancer. If you don't treat it, if you don't cut it
out, it's going to spread throughout the body and destroy the human being,"
said Brown, whose proposal had the support of Mayor Willie Brown and the
Police Department.

"The people in these communities live in a precarious state year after
year," the supervisor said. "It's death in slow motion for them."

But Supervisor Leslie Katz said the proposal was a dangerous erosion of
civil liberties. "This risks the forfeiture of our rights,'' she said. "It
threatens the fundamental tenet of the presumption of innocence."

Like other opponents, she said the program would penalize people of color
and was unfair because vehicle seizures are a civil matter, meaning poor
defendants would not be guaranteed a lawyer in court.

"I could never support this without the surety of representation for those
who couldn't afford it," said Supervisor Mark Leno.

An unusual feature of the board's 90-minute debate was the questioning of
District Attorney Terence Hallinan, whose record of prosecuting
prostitutes, their customers and drug dealers and buyers has frustrated
police and residents of affected neighborhoods.

"It's not true that San Francisco does nothing about crime," said Hallinan,
who was narrowly re-elected in November in a campaign in which his
conviction record was a key issue. "But I recognize we have a tremendous
number of crimes. Given the resources, we do a tremendous job."

But Hallinan said he had gotten the message from angry residents of
neighborhoods where prostitution and drug dealing are problems.

"I respond to public pressure," he said. "But we have limited resources."

Hallinan said that since May, his office has filed criminal charges in 288
prostitution cases, almost all of them against female prostitutes. In
addition, 250 men have been sent to a first-time offenders' program for
soliciting prostitutes. That program claims a 98 percent success rate in
preventing repeat offenses.

He also defended his office's practice of sending many small-time drug
offenders to diversion programs rather than jail.

"The problem is that once you have the perception that San Francisco is
easygoing on crime, you're going to attract more people here to commit
crime," Supervisor Alicia Becerril said as she questioned Hallinan.

"I agree," Hallinan responded. "We're not as tough as other counties.
That's a San Francisco tradition.

"Murder, rape and other violent crimes are our priority," he said.

Several of the supervisors who voted against Brown's idea suggested that
the police do more to deter the problem. They proposed more street patrols,
traffic-calming measures in areas such as Capp Street in the Mission where
prostitution is a particular problem, or installing video surveillance
cameras in problem areas.

Kaufman said opponents had their priorities backwards. "It's been suggested
we can do better than this law. But the reality is we aren't. I keep
hearing about the civil rights of offenders, but what about the rights of
neighbors?

"The fundamental right is that you should be free to live free of
prostitution and drug dealing," she said.

Brown's measure was amended to try to meet some of the opponents' concerns.
Changes included turning the project into a one-year pilot program and
dropping marijuana from the drugs that could lead to vehicle seizure. Also,
proceeds from the sale of seized vehicles would have gone to the city
general fund rather than the police budget.

E-mail Edward Epstein at eepstein@sfchronicle.com.