Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 07/27/2007 7:03:53 AM PDT by SubGeniusX
California Supreme Court Overturns Car Seizure Ordinance The California Supreme Court says cities may no longer seize automobiles from people merely accused of a crime.
In a 4-3 opinion yesterday, the California Supreme Court ruled illegal the city of Stockton's program to seize automobiles from motorists not convicted of any crime. Under the city's ordinance, police could impound the vehicle of anyone accused of using it "to solicit an act of prostitution, or to acquire or attempt to acquire any controlled substance." The city could then hold the car for up to a year without hearing, trial or any finding of guilt.
If a hearing was held, the city would take ownership of the property after the hearing officer decided the defendant was likely to be guilty based on a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, as opposed to a "proved beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. The confiscated vehicle would then be sold at auction, raising thousands in revenue for the city, with a cut of the profits being shared with the police agency that brought in the seized car.
This program generated significant legal controversy, spawning a series of contradictory appeals court rulings that disagreed whether the practice was legal (read decision) or violated procedural due process. Yesterday's decision settled the question by finding Stockton's ordinance in conflict with existing state law.
"A conflict exists if the local legislation 'duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication,'" the decision stated, citing precedent.
California law already provides a set of specific regulations limiting car seizure for drug crimes. Unlike Stockton's ordinance, seizure under state law is a penalty for the felony sale and manufacturing of narcotics, not for simple possession. It is further limited as a penalty only for those convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime in which the vehicle was similarly proved to "facilitate" the manufacture or sale of the drugs.
"By way of contrast, the city's ordinance allows the harsh penalty of vehicle forfeiture upon proof merely by a preponderance of evidence of a vehicle's use simply 'to attempt to acquire' any amount of any controlled substance (for instance, less than 28.5 grams of marijuana, a low-grade misdemeanor warranting only a $100 fine and no jail time and not subject to vehicle forfeiture under the UCSA)."
Another provision of California law specifically prohibits a local jurisdiction from inserting itself in matters settled by the state legislature.
"Thus, under section 21, local regulation of any 'matter' covered by this state's Vehicle Code is prohibited unless the legislature has expressly allowed local regulation in that field," the ruling stated.
The same legal principle was used by the Minnesota Supreme Court in striking down a local ordinance that purported to authorize red light camera ticketing (read decision). The Ohio and Iowa Supreme Courts face this question as well as pending cases require a decision on whether local photo enforcement ordinances violate state law.
The California decision will not only shut down dozens of car confiscation programs operating throughout the state, but the precedent will also spell trouble for the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority which set up automated stop sign cameras earlier this month on canyon roads in Los Angeles. The obscure governmental agency also intends to set up speed camera ticketing, which is prohibited by state law (view ordinance).
The full text of the California Supreme Court ruling is available in a 68k PDF file at the source link below.
LOLI saw my error almost simultaniously as I hit the send button.
Seizure laws corrupt law enforcement everywhere and always and are a PROFOUNDLY bad idea. Cops should get their pay check and that’s all. Allowing them to profit in ANY other way (even something as ‘simple’ as driving a nice car) is asking for tyranny and abuse. And if you ask for it you will certainly get it.
Like I said it’s controversial. Question: If they found the drugs in a suitcase are they bound to return the suitcase.
Forfeiture has been contested for years, but unfortunately was ultimately supported by the Supreme Court. The reasoning is that it is a civil case against the property itself, and thus your regular rights don't apply. I do however admit that it could and probably has been used inappropriately
The number of abuses are astounding, in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions by now. The abuse is driven by the fact that most forfeited assets get to be used by the police and prosecutors (such as a personal BMW 750 to drive around in). Are you willing to let that continue so we can put an almost unnoticeable dent in the profits of the drug dealers? To them, seizure is an accounted cost of doing business, but to the rest of America it is devastating.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Well! Most of the seizures are sold at auction. Like I said it’s controversial. Question: If they found the drugs in a suitcase are they bound to return the suitcase.
Prostitution too??
What if you solicit for a freebie? Is that 'prostitution'?
A criminal doesn't care. He'll just walk away from his losses. It's a normal part of doing business.
But speaking of drugs, remember how marijuana is legal in CA for medicinal purposes? The feds are confiscating the property of legal distribution centers in order to shut them down now. They've recently told landlords of such centers that their property will be confiscated if they keep renting to smaller state-approved centers. Talk about a loss of state sovereignty.
I remember a case where a charter pilot took a regular-looking passenger on a business trip as usual. When he landed the feds took the passenger's briefcase which contained a lot of cash. They also took the pilot's Lear Jet. The drug guy just disappeared, writing off the loss. After years in court the pilot ended up having to buy his plane back at auction. Remember, you're up against the full force of the state or federal government (or both) to get your stuff back, and they'll fight tooth and nail, appealing all the way up, bankrupting you with bonds and legal fees if they have to in order to keep your stuff.
This was never anything but a ruse to allow the sale of Marijuana . These so called medicinal uses were rife with illegal sales. Whether you agree with it or not marijuana sales are illegal. These arrests are perfectly legal. While the case you stated in it’s content are deplorable one assumes the guy had access to counsel. I won’t attempt to defend all actions of the Federal government the Ruby Ridge thing really was a ridiculous misuse of power so I’m Leary of the misuse of power, But sometimes one must walk right up to the line, this makes it risky and easy to go over it.
Question: If they found the drugs in a suitcase are they bound to return the suitcase.
Is it illegal to have a suitcase? Why would the suitcase even be taken to begin with? Take the drugs, leave the suitcase, then it isn’t even an issue. But that’s the problem isn’t it? The cops want stuff, they want YOUR stuff if they can get it. Seizure laws turn the cops into greedy little tyrants.
The author who wrote that article got it slightly wrong. What they are questioning is/are the laws a violation of ones constitutional rights i.e. you/they have a right to face their accuser which is a camera and is located on the corner of x&y not in the courtroom where he should be.
You see the argument gets to be rather ridiculous. baggies are legal to should these also be returned. And when you raid his house , bunson burners ,scales, and chemicals etc. should be returned. So you swoop in seize the finished product and leave the lab intact. A car used to deliver drugs is part of the drug dealers assets and are confiscated same as his other drug producing and dilivery paraphernalia.
This is a duplicate of the Giuliani program in NYC. It’s about time courts started knocking down this abomination.
If the owner of said suitcase is not convicted of a crime, of course the state must return it -- and in a timely fashion, too.
Striking a blow against civil asset forfeiture laws, where ever they exist, is a good thing. Now, if they could just go after the corrupt law enforcement along I-10, selecting out-of-state drivers with expensive vehicles and impounding them, knowing full well that it’s an extreme hardship to challenge it in court when you live hundreds of miles away ... it’s all such a tremendous invitation to corruption. It needs to end, no matter what the supposed benefits of reducing other sorts of criminal activity are supposed to be. Law enforcement needs to be held to a high standard of legal behavior, otherwise there can be no trust in the law.
Fine by me -- that's their choice.
Whatever it is doesn't matter. It's the principle.
Whether you agree with it or not marijuana sales are illegal. These arrests are perfectly legal.
Not if you agree with the Constitution's design for state sovereignty and limited federal powers. I don't like marijuana either, but its legality is a state issue when the plants don't cross state lines.
While the case you stated in it’s content are deplorable one assumes the guy had access to counsel.
Your access to counsel doesn't matter, as the case isn't against you. Nowhere do your constitutional rights come into this scenario. They can take your stuff on a vague feeling of illegality, and it is a very expensive, uphill battle for you as a third party to get it back. You have to post bond, you have to pay legal fees commensurate with fighting against the resources of a greedy government, and hope the government doesn't take that too. That is if they haven't already confiscated all of your assets, depriving you of the resources to fight. That happened to a doctor once who didn't know to fill out the paperwork when transferring money from one of his accounts to another -- everything was seized, and his friends who loaned him the money to fight found themselves in trouble too.
I remember one instance of a landscaper who used to regularly fly to a nearby state with cash to buy his supplies. He fit a profile, so IIRC around $8,000 was just taken from him at the airport. What do you do when the fight to get it back will easily cost you over $10,000, non-reimbursable?
But sometimes one must walk right up to the line
They ran past the line a long time ago. I don't think they even noticed it.
This was never anything but a ruse to allow the sale of Marijuana .
Whatever it is doesn’t matter. It’s the principle.
There is no principal in passing a law for an express purpose when the intent is something else.
The drug trade long ago became more than a state problems. Most of these laws we are speaking of were brought about at the behest of state AGs.
While the case you stated in it’s content are deplorable one assumes the guy had access to counsel.
I would not begin to justify this kind of abuse , sadly there are Mike Nifongs among us. The bastard that did this should be prosecuted.
Well! I guess there are perfectly innocent reasons far having a suitcase full of cocaine, but I be damn if I can think of one.
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.