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.
It's exactly what we're talking about: the power of a state to deal with such matters without interference from the federal government. Forfeiture laws are one way the federal government is executing such interference.
I’m sorry if you disagree but state law never trumps Federal law. This victory is probably going to be short lived if the SCOTUS takes it up. But thats just my opinion , I learned a long time ago that courts can be counted on to render surprising opinions. And they’ve render a bunch I don’t like but I’m in the same boat you are, There’s not a damn thing I can do about it except elect politicians I think will agree with me and sometimes they lie.
California supreme court??? What are you talking about? I referred you to an article published by the Heritage Foundation. And you’re the one talking about turning over absolute power to the courts.
This is a duplicate of the Giuliani program in NYC. It’s about time courts started knocking down this abomination.
I believe this is your post #33
So if they’re knocking down something you disagree with everything is hunky dory but if you don’t agree they’re power hungry mongrels.
Unconstitutional.
Always has been, always will be.
How does it feel to know that you paved the way for this "mission creep"?
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Well! I guess there are perfectly innocent reasons far having a suitcase full of cocaine Big Macs, but I be damn if I can think of one.
There, all fixed.
You stated that you support property seizures for illicit drug involvement.
Now, the community I live near can seize your property if some zoning enforcement zombie doesn't like the way you mow (or don't mow) your lawn.
That is mission creep, and you helped enable it.
Ease up on the bong man.
Ease up on the tyranny, man.
WOW! I have that much power, and all I’m doing is bloging on FR.
Those who advocate or fail to object are equally culpable.
Well you should have to mow your yard, If it offends your neighbors. That’s only being neighborly.
That equally applies in both directions.
Can't have one without the others.
See, this is a problem.
There are people who want the USA to be run like a giant out-of-control homeowners' association with guns, arrest powers, and confiscation as tools.
I agree with you...........Idiots don’t think about how their pet peeve BS/PC law will set a precedent for more of the same crap squared.........
Absolutely!
Some of us just err on the side of liberty.
Thank you, my brother (in arms and lots of other ways).
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.