BEAT FEET STILL VIOLATES BASIC RIGHTS

I have been a consistent critic of Oakland's Beat Feet ordinance. The
law allows police officers to seize cars allegedly used to in the
street purchase of drugs or the solicitation of prostitutes. I oppose
it because it allows the seizure of property before a person is
convicted of any crime. It is the first such law in California.

When an Alameda County Superior Court judge upheld the law earlier
this month, its proponents called the ruling a vindication, and some
wondered if I would change my position.

Don't count of it. It's hardly the first time I've disagreed with a
court ruling.

For one thing, the ruling was narrowly focused. The ACLU, representing
the citizen who brought the lawsuit against the city, argued the Beat
Feet ordinance violates state law. A state law allows vehicle seizures
only after a person has been convicted of a crime.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Henry E. Needham Jr. rejected the
ACLU challenge, ruling the state law does not preempt the city
ordinance. Hiss decision freed the city to re-institute Beat Feet.
Spokespersons for the ACLU said the organization will appeal the ruling.

But even if this law were eventually upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court,
I would oppose it. It is a tricky evasion of the right to due process
and a violation of the basic principle that a person is innocent until
proven guilty.

The city and county lawyers argue that because the law is a blight
ordinance under civil law, and not a criminal statute, the guarantees
of a trial and conviction before punishment don't apply.

However they classify the law, it allow a person to suffer a major
punishment -- seizure of his or her vehicle -- without the benefit of
a trial. What if the police officer makes a mistake about which
vehicle was allegedly involved in the illicit activity? Under the
ordinance, a person has the right to file a claim and have a hearing
to prove his or her innocence. However, our system of justice provides
that a person is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven
innocent.

The ACLU points out that 176 of the nearly 100 vehicle seizures have
invoked the alleged purchase of $10 to $30 worth of marijuana. That
means in almost one-fifth of the cases, people have lost their cars
over minuscule amounts of marijuana. If they were tried for purchasing
such small amounts of the drug, they would receive a maximum fine of
$100. How can city officials justify such an excessive punishment?

The answer is the community response to the court ruling. Residents of
East Oakland neighborhoods plagued by street drug dealing were in
court and let out a cheer at the judge's decision. The city press
release announcing the "vindication" of the ordinance discussed the
decay and blight that results from street drug sales and prostitution.
Supports often point out the majority of the people caught in the Beat
Feet stings are from out of town.

I've tried to make this argument repeatedly over the years Here goes
another attempt. Crime and urban decay do not justify the violation
of constitutional protections. In fact, authoritarian societies always
use the protection of public safety as the rationale for the
restriction of individual rights. But once those rights are lost, they
are not easily reclaimed.

During the War on Drugs, urban neighborhoods already have experience
random and frequent police stops of young men that have bred a
dangerous distrust and dislike of police officers. These activities
have undermined a belief in our justice system. These areas are
already victimized by poverty and the attendant crime. They don's need
to be additionally victimized by a loss of individual rights.

Further, the laws we have on the books have been effective in reducing
crime. Why do we want the dubious distinction of being the city that
leads the way in establishing unnecessary laws that violate individual
rights? I'll never agree with that.

Checked-by: Patrick Henry