Posted on 05/02/2007 3:44:04 PM PDT by SmithL
Stockton, Calif. (AP) -- The state's Supreme Court heard arguments this week challenging a Stockton ordinance that allows police to seize and sell the cars of people caught selling drugs or soliciting prostitutes while behind the wheel.
More than two dozen California communities have similar ordinances, but Stockton resident Kendra O'Connell has filed a lawsuit that could block the practice.
O'Connell never had her car seized but filed the suit as a concerned citizen who objected to Stockton's seizure law, said her lawyer, Mark Clausen.
The city should not have the right to take away somebody's car for these relatively minor crimes, he said Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Bookmarked for later.
I’m with you.
She doesn’t have a ‘dog in the fight’.
Should not? Ooooh. Tough legalese.
I don’t quite understand either. Can you ping me when further develops?
I’ll try.
“...the seizure law has proven to be an effective crime-fighting tool...”
So would summary executions but who would argue that the punishment fit the crime? The seizures don’t, either. It seems to me that any citizen who believes a law to be unconstitutional would have standing.
Good for her. Confiscating a car for trying to buy unconstitutionally prohibited goods or services is "unreasonable seizure" under the 4th Amendment.
I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t even play one on TV, but I know I’ve read about cases being thrown out because the suing party hadn’t proved that they were the ones who had been injured.
However, if you read the entire article, it sure looks like a repulsive shake-down racket by the city.
Ditto that.
Unless there's something else going on here her suit is going to be dismissed for lack of standing. You have to have been injured, or be facing imminent injury, to challenge the constitutionality of a law. Even if she claimed she was a drug dealer and said she might lose her car, I don't think she could sue unless & until the city tried to seize it.
Many here at FR believe that any citizen, [who dares consider that a law passed by a majority may not be constitutional], -- should not be allowed to even say so, much less have legal standing in a court.
The way I see it, her dog in the fight is the violation of the 4th amendment. Soliciting prostitution is a misdemeanor, I don’t think anyone wants all misdemeanors to suddenly qualify for property seizure, I know I sure don’t, even though I have no plans to commit one.
“You have to have been injured, or be facing imminent injury, to challenge the constitutionality of a law.”
Certainly that would be true in a civil matter, especially if you were trying to claim some sort of monetary damages, although the ACLU always seems to manage that, but I don’t see how one citizen, seeing another being subjected to unconstitutional punishment, cannot claim to be affected. What can be done to one, if nobody steps forward, can happen to all (think weapons confiscation, for starters).
News from Meth Valley.
Actually, it isn’t. If, I remember correctly, there was a Supreme Court case where a guy used the family car to pickup hookers - it was confiscated. His wife sued to get the family car back and lost. Property used to commit a crime is forfeited under the law of deodand.
There’s an exception to the standing doctrine if she can show the law will have a chilling effect on some constitutional right. Not sure how she’ll show that though.
Scoring BJ's in the old Vista Cruiser - I'm sure losing the car was the least of this guy's problems.
Good for her. Confiscating a car for trying to buy unconstitutionally prohibited goods or services is "unreasonable seizure" under the 4th Amendment.
Actually, it isn't.
You don't agree that the 4th enumerates our right to be protected from "unreasonable seizures"?
If, I remember correctly, there was a Supreme Court case where a guy used the family car to pickup hookers - it was confiscated. His wife sued to get the family car back and lost. Property used to commit a crime is forfeited under the law of deodand.
Well "unreasonable seizures" are not to be allowed by the Law of the Land, - the 4th. -- And if I remember correctly, the USSC makes a ~lot~ of questionable 'rulings'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.