MIAMI ORDINANCE PENALIZES THE WRONG PEOPLE

Court Puts The Brakes On Car-Seizure Policy

To deter persistent crimes, such as prostitution and drug dealing,
municipalities sometimes get creative. Some put johns' names on
billboards; others create drug-free zones near schools and parks. The
most effective initiatives target perpetrators, leave law-abiding
residents unscathed and pass legal muster.

Last week, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld a ruling that
Miami's car-impoundment policy fails on all three counts. City
ordinance allows police to impound vehicles believed to have been used
to facilitate a crime. If a driver tries make a deal with a prostitute
or buy drugs, police make an arrest and take the vehicle. The owner
must pay $1,000 to get the vehicle returned. If not, the car can be
sold, reaping revenue for private towing companies and the city.
Between 1997 and 2001 the city collected more than $8.5 million.

But the profits came, sometimes, at the expense of the wrong people.
Several residents sued the city, saying the law was flawed: Defendants
paid the $1,000 fine before a finding of guilt. If they are acquitted,
the fine isn't refunded. The fine far exceeded the penalty for
soliciting prostitution; and the city penalized ''innocent third
parties'' -- spouses, for instance, who owned the car in which their
partner was arrested for an alleged crime. The spouses, too, have to
pay the fine, even though they may not have been present during the
alleged crime or aware of their partner's actions. Too often, innocent
spouses have been stuck without means to get to work or take children
to school.

In 2001, the circuit court ruled that the city couldn't impound a
vehicle unless the driver is the sole owner. The city appealed. Last
week, the appeal court upheld the ruling, saying that Miami should
comport with state law, which gives innocent owners a break. We agree
that the city is overreaching. It should craft a law that punishes the
culpable without penalizing the innocent.