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.
If yer right your right...........Tijeras has a home association ? Slim turn Nazi on us ?...........:o)
Well I’ve been at this for eleven hours so I’ll move on and let you guys hash it out. Antirpublicrat thanks for the back and forth it’s been a pleasure same to you ellery.
Nope, but I did have somebody in a pickup with Bernalillo County Fire Dept. decals all over it and a sidearm show up last Sunday to ask me to put out my cigar while I was sitting in a lawn chair OUTSIDE at least 200 yards away from anybody or any living thing but my dog.
No kidding ...........arson investigators patrolling the canyon eh ? Where ya up by Tablazon or down old South 14 ?
Uh, no. My stance is that the clear language of the Constitution, and the Founders’ intent based on the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist papers, are the standard by which all government action must be judged. When the courts overturn unConstitutional laws based on the Constitution and the Founders’ intent, then I support the courts. When the courts uphold unConstitutional law (or try to write it), then I oppose the courts.
You’re the one who is arguing for arbitrary standards (i.e., “Constitutional” means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, today). I’m arguing for a consistent standard that does not change except when we the People change the Constitution itself via the amendment process.
Hope they don’t start confiscating computers for internet addiction, or we’ll all be in trouble. :) Have a good night.
Tablazon.
Sounds like a “Bill of Attainder”. I am not sure if the California constitution forbids it or not.
A “Bill of attainder” is any kind of law that is supposed to deprive you of your property without due process. The “due process” part of this is you are not supposed to be subject to forfeiting your property without a court judgment. The legislature is trying to bypass the courts which is not a good thing.
Administrative procedures conducted by a "hearings officer" or "administrative law judge", as they are called in many states, are kangaroo courts, typically requiring a defendant to prove innocence, the state's case already having been stipulated and deemed factual before the hearing. In many states, court trials for "violations", such as traffic tickets, are not much better than this.
The US constitution does not allow such procedures, it seems to me, yet they happen every day.
So yes, allow remedies that are appropriate and in the public interest - we should have no problem with that. But only after due process. It's well past time we demand a return to constitutional standards.
This California decision is not in favor of any constitution, but rather the supremacy of state laws over local ordinances.
You’re either a practicing or aspiring lawyer, right?
“But illegal drugs are a scourge on this country....”
IMHO, this is why we yet wait for a decent border fence and a legitimate, controlled, humane immigration process....
Nope. Just a guy who has seen a lot of BS over the years, and who believes our constitution(s) do not permit most of it.
In general, true, but in this case federal law is going where it's not supposed to be. A Congress and SCOTUS that respects the constitution would not have such a law exist. It's the same as if we had Kentucky making treaties with other countries -- not a power given in the Constitution.
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.