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.
Here’s an all-too-common one: a corrupt official coveted your belongings, so s/he planted cocaine.
This is why the Founders set up a nation of laws, not of men. It’s simple: let those who are accused of a crime exercise their due-process rights, and have their day in court.
any law can be corrupted! We still have to enforce them. Scenarios such as this will always be with us.
You're the one arguing against enforcing the very foundation of our legal system. According to your arguments, government agents have the power to violate the Constitution. I assert that all agents of the government are bound by the Constitution -- i.e., they cannot deprive people of life, liberty or property without due process.
but WTF did that have to do with THIS THREAD AND TOPIC!!!
NOTHING!!!
This thread did not deal with immigration... this ruling did not deal with unregistered motor vehicles... This had to do with property seizure for minor misdemeanors ... and the lack of Due Process ...
aren’t there enough threads dealing with the immigration issue on this board, that it can be throughly discussed ...
why do you and others feel the need to hijack threads that have nothing to do with the issue ...
there are plenty of other legitimate “OHHSSS NOZE TEH ILEGAAALLLZZZ!!!” threads out there ...
I’ve made no such statement. These laws were passed and have been challenge and upheld by the Supreme Court.
Florida Case Law Update
99-06: Seizure of a vehicle for forfeiture
Case: Florida v. White, U.S. Supreme Court
Date: May 17, 1999
FACTS: In Case Law Update 98-03, it was reported that the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a seizure warrant is necessary to seize a vehicle for forfeiture. That included a vehicle parked in a public area. The decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
RULING: The United States Supreme Court reversed the ruling by our state court. They held that as long as the vehicle is located in a public place, a warrantless seizure of the vehicle does not violate the Fourth Amendment. NOTE: The vehicle in this case was located in the parking lot of the business where the owner worked. If the vehicle is on private property, consult with your legal advisor for the proper method of seizing it. Also, the case was remanded to the Florida Supreme Court. They may decide to require a warrant anyway based on other constitutional considerations (such as due process). If that occurs, another case law update will be published to let you know.
For Further Information Contact:
The principle is state sovereignty. Whatever the ruse, it is a state issue to resolve.
I would not begin to justify this kind of abuse , sadly there are Mike Nifongs among us.
When it comes to seizure the Nifongs are not a tiny minority. This isn't one rape case, it's hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of victims.
It is policy. Where outraged citizens finally got state governments to do something, the police simply went around them. New Mexico clamped down, requiring conviction, a reasonable amount seized, and nothing goes to the police (eliminating their greed motive). No problem, the police started letting the feds "adopt" all their forfeiture cases, in return for 80% back. It took years of litigation and an appeals court ruling to finally force the police to comply with the law.
Having to go to court to force police to comply with a law that protects citizens -- that's what asset forfeiture has brought us to. Of course, those officers who broke the law at the expense of citizens will probably not be prosecuted. They should be convicted, and then their assets should be seized, equal to the value of what they illegally seized from the citizens.
This isn't an aberration or a rare miscarriage of justice. It is endemic as seizures tempted the greed of every law enforcement officer, office, department and agency in the country. And that temptation bore fruit with a huge number of them -- almost half of local authorities are now dependent on forfeiture money for their operations. Whatever the benefits of this program, they are minuscule compared to not only the damage done to law-abiding citizens, but to the Constitution.
There is, of course, another aspect: Police will go after lucrative targets instead of the ones they should be catching. Police used to pose as buyers in order to nail the dealers in possession of a lot of drugs. Not so much anymore. Now they pose as dealers so they can nail buyers and thus seize their money. You see, five kilos of coke in the possession of a dealer isn't really worth anything to the police, but the guy who was trying to buy a small baggie might have several thousand dollars on him.
There is no principal in passing a law for an express purpose when the intent is something else.
The principle is state sovereignty. Whatever the ruse, it is a state issue to resolve.
If you truly believe this claptrap I have no logical argument.Your reasoning is absurd.We are ruled by the Constitution of the United States and if a state passes a law that does not comply it is not the states sole right to correct it , it is the Government of the United states responsibility to challenge it.
How does the in-state selling of cannabis not comply with the Constitution? Its illegality is a relatively recent thing.
At issue here is how the federal government managed to assume the power to override state law on this internal state issue. Hint: It came from overextending the commerce clause into absurdity.
I don’t want to get into the legalization of cannabis nor do I want to defend the DEA or ATF and I certainly don’t believe they don’t cross the line. But illegal drugs are a scourge on this country and if we have a tool and it’s been sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme court then we need to use it. After all the constitution gives the court that power. I might add that this is the court we have been working so hard to get, that doesn’t necessarily guarantee we’ll get all the rulings we like.
Neither do I, as it is a state issue, just like abortion.
But illegal drugs are a scourge on this country and if we have a tool and it’s been sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme court then we need to use it.
Again, you target drugs because of what they are, ignoring constitutional principles that should apply in all cases. Unconstitutional eminent domain land grabs for private gain and use have also been sanctioned by SCOTUS, so they are not a very good benchmark.
might add that this is the court we have been working so hard to get
This court hasn't heard any seizure cases AFAIK. But in the previous court they stretched the commerce clause far beyond any believable intent of the Constitution. In Golzalez v. Raich, our most conservative justice Clarence Thomas said in his dissent:
Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States." Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.
It’s funny that a post I just made on another thread applies here:
I subscribe to a Constitutional originalist philosophy. In other words, when Supreme Court rulings conflict with the clear language of the Constitution, and the clear intent of the Founders as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers, I side with the Constitution and the Founders every time.
State seizure of property absent conviction is clearly in opposition to the Founders’ intent — so I’ll go with the Founders.
You mean the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the last say in interpreting the Constitution.
Respondent’s local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not “Commerce ... among the several States.” Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.
This is not we’re are talking about. We’re talking about drug dealers most states already recognize the difference between quantities for personal use and for resale hence misdomeaner vs felony.
The logical extension of your argument is that five US Supreme Court justices could Constitutionally throw out the Constitution altogether (except for the section that establishes the US Supreme Court).
That, or course, is absurd. Obviously if the clear language of the Constitution and intent of the Founders conflicts with what SCOTUS rules, the Constitution, not SCOTUS, takes precedence. Otherwise the Founders would have simply set us up with a council of nine supreme rulers in the first place and not bothered with the rest of it.
It’s the system the founders set man. I don’t know what to say to you. You can object all you want to but in the end it all comes down to those nine justices. I can understand your frustration and even agree with 90% of your argument but it’s all a wash. Founders intent is not always absolute, They did intend for blacks to be slaves you know.
Absolutely yes, unless after conviction it was PROVEN to be purchased with money derived from illegal activity.
See post #32!
Not so. First of all, the Constitution does not explicitly provide for judicial review, and some of the founders (e.g., Jefferson) opposed the concept. Second, it was not the founders, but the Supreme Court in Dred Scott, that found a Constitutional right to own slaves.
Here’s a good article on the subject: http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/hl871.cfm
If you want to subscribe to the notion that SCOTUS is ultimately the supreme power of our Republic, that’s your right. However, your view is not supported by history, the Founders or the Constitution.
Well since Washington ,Jefferson and most of the signature es owned slaves I would guess that they were alright with it. So at least as far as their actions they must have believed it was constitutional.
Neither of our opinions have anything to do with it at this point in time. It is what it is and and we have to live with it. I see you have no problem quoting the California supreme Court when it agrees with you. There is no way in hell I would want to turn this country over to them. Would you?
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.