POLICE AS JUDGE AND JURY

ARE police officers always right? Can they make a mistake when they arrest
someone?

Under Oakland's Operation Beat Feet - the vehicle seizure and forfeiture
ordinance - police officers can seize the vehicle of a person arrested for
buying drugs or soliciting a prostitute. Before the person is tried. Before
the individual is convicted.

In essence, the officers are put in the position of being judge and jury.
What about the criminal justice system's guarantees of due process or that
archaic idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty? The new law
substitutes arrested for proven guilty.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of a similar law in
Michigan. However, the state legislative counsel ruled the ordinance
violates state laws that require a conviction before a vehicle is seized.
The city attorney and district attorney argue the ordinance is in
compliance with state law.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union warn that lawsuits brought
against the city will probably sort out the legality of the ordinance.

But I wonder about the city's rationale in "forging ahead" (in the words of
a deputy city attorney) with a law that undermines basic protections of
individual rights.

I try to avoid criticism or praise of elected officials during campaign
season, but once again, Councilmember Nate Miley Is behind a law that
compromises civil liberties. Miley also supported a plan to put
surveillance cameras on public streets; thankfully, the City Council backed
away from it.

Miley has made public safety his No.1 Issue and he defends the vehicle
seizure ordinance with rhetoric that the city will not condone prostitution
and drug dealing. He points out that a majority of the people arrested
under the law are outsiders who come to Oakland to engage in criminal
behavior.

All law-abiding Oaklanders are outraged that outsiders come to our city and
perpetuate crime. We're the ones who have to live with the after-math - the
violence, broken lives, devastated neighbor-hoods. But we have numerous
laws and a police force that have been highly effective in fighting crime.

In fact, one of the curiosities about the law is that it was passed when
crime was down. The nationwide trend has experts puzzled. Most theorize a
number of factors and a range of strategies are responsible for the drop.
What-ever the reasons, ifs strange for the city to become more despotic
when crime is on the decrease.

The ordinance presents a similar dilemma as privacy laws. If a person is
arrested while soliciting a prostitute or purchasing drugs, it might seem
they are clearly guilty. What's the need for a trial? However, our system
is built on a process that requires the prosecutor to prove the defendant's
guilt, no matter how obvious the crime.

After seizure of the vehicle, the ordinance allows the defendant to file a
claim and have a hearing in which the city has to prove the individual's
guilt. But that's the equivalent of a person being arrested and sent to
prison and then having the right to a trial to establish his or her guilt.

And what about the cases in which the person driving the car and allegedly
engaging in criminal activity is not the owner of the car? More than one of
the 32 seized vehicles has fallen in that category. Is the owner
responsible for the activities of the person who is driving the car? Should
the owner have to prove his or her innocence at a hearing before being able
to retrieve the car?

Oakland is the first city in California to delve into the murky area of
vehicle seizure. Is that a distinction we really want?