CAR IMPOUND LAW GOES TO BOARD

S.F. police could seize vehicles suspected of being used to obtain drugs

A constitutional showdown is sure to erupt if San Francisco enacts a
controversial law that would let police seize cars suspected of being used
in the solicitation of drugs and prostitutes - even if the owners are never
convicted.

Backed by cops and residents living in crime-plagued neighborhoods and
opposed by civil libertarians concerned about due process, the proposed
ordinance cleared a key hurdle at City Hall on Tuesday.

The Board of Supervisors Housing and Social Policy Committee, without taking
a position on the measure, voted to send the legislation to the full board
for consideration next week.

The measure requires that officers have "clear and convincing evidence" that
the driver of the car was buying drugs or soliciting a prostitute before the
vehicle can be impounded. Criminal conviction of the driver is not necessary
under the legislation drafted by Supervisor Amos Brown.

Capt. Kevin Cashman, head of San Francisco Police Department's vice squad,
said such a law would be an effective deterrent as has been shown in
Oakland, which has adopted a similar law, he said.

Now, he said, "pimps, prostitutes, johns and narcotics dealers and users
commute to San Francisco to ply their trade rather than lose their vehicles
in Oakland."

SFPD statistics show that of the 2,471 "Johns" picked up in undercover
police operations in The City over the past 13 months, 47 percent lived
outside The City.

Jane Martin is fed up. She lives near 17th and Shotwell streets in the
Mission, an area long saturated with street walkers.

The seizure law is needed, she said, "so we can sleep at night, walk across
the street, stand in front of our homes to water our plants or walk with our
children down the block to school without being approached by sex-seeking
men."

But the measure's critics say it's the wrong answer. Supervisor Sue Bierman
said more police presence and stepped-up prosecution of existing laws is
what's needed. She and others also questioned the constitutionality of a
seizure law.

"I'm not here to question the problems that occur; I'm sure they do occur,"
said Alan Schlosser, managing attorney for the American Civil Liberties
Union of Northern California. But, he said, "this is a punitive measure for
criminal offenses for which there is no requirement of conviction."

In addition, he said, there's no presumption of innocence. He said that
while there are provisions in the legislation to give owners of the
confiscated cars a chance to prove their innocence and get their vehicles
back, the proposed system for redress would be complicated and potentially
costly.

Eric Kinney, a Vallejo resident, found that out first hand when his car was
seized a year ago by cops in Oakland.

Kinney was caught in a sting operation when he allegedly tried to buy two
grams of what he thought was marijuana from undercover officers for $20.
Police immediately took away his 1989 Ford Ranger, which was worth about
$5,000.

"This was very traumatic," he said. He spent more than $2,000 to hire a
lawyer to fight the seizure, and eventually got his car back. He was never
convicted.

Martha Upshur, who lives in Hunters Point, wasn't shedding tears. She said
the drug trade in her neighborhood, with the accompanying violence and
loitering, has forced her to "live in hell."

The ACLU has a pending legal challenge against Oakland's 3-year-old car
seizure law which has resulted in some 300 vehicles being impounded and sold
at auction, with proceeds split between the offices of district attorney and
the city attorney. Police also recoup their expenses.

The Oakland law has been upheld by the Superior Court and a state appeals
court. The ACLU has appealed to the California Supreme Court. Schlosser said
San Francisco could expect a challenge if the legislation is adopted.