California Cities Lose the Right to Seize Vehicles of People Merely Accused of Crimes
On July 26, 2007 the California Supreme Court ruled that it is illegal for the city of Stockton to seize automobiles of people who are arrested for, but not yet convicted of, a crime.
The ordinance that previously allowed the city to seize cars made it common practice for anyone arrested for soliciting prostitution, buying drugs or attempting to buy drugs to have their cars impounded. Under the ordinance, Stockton could hold the car for up to a year without a trial or conviction being required.
When there was a hearing for the accused and the hearing officer decided that the defendant was likely to be found guilty at trial based upon a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, the city would take ownership of the vehicle and sell it at auction. This practice raised thousands of dollars for the city of Stockton and the police department who made the arrest which led to the seizure were given a cut of the profits. What an incentive to make more arrests and seize more vehicles!
There has been much controversy over the seizure and sale of the vehicles in Stockton. Lower courts disagreed over whether the practice was legal or if it violated procedural due process. There were many contradictory rulings made in regard to the ordinance. The California Supreme Court decision put the conflicts to rest by declaring the Stockton ordinance to be in conflict with California state law.
The law in California already provides specific regulations limiting the seizure of cars for drug related offenses. Under the state law, seizure of a vehicle can only happen as a penalty for the manufacture or felony sale of narcotics. Stockton's policy of seizing vehicles when a suspect was accused of simple possession was contradictory to that law, and therefore illegal. State law further dictates that a person's vehicle can only be seized when he is convicted, not accused, of a drug related crime in which the vehicle is proven to have aided in the manufacture or sale of illegal drugs.
Stockton's ordinance was even further out of line with state law when it took ownership and sold the vehicles based on a "preponderance of evidence" when a suspect was accused of attempting to acquire even a small amount of a controlled substance. This meant that anyone even suspected of trying to purchase less than 28.5 grams of marijuana in Stockton was subject to having their vehicles seized and sold at auction to benefit the city and arresting police department. A purchase of this small amount of marijuana is a low level misdemeanor, punishable by a $100 fine and no jail time and the vehicle is certainly not subject to seizure and sale under California state law.
In other words, the California Supreme Court ruling says that cities can not have local ordinances that trump state law.
Laws don't usually get changed unless someone challenges them. Apparently Stockton's ordinance was finally challenged enough and the result was the Supreme Court decision that their ordinance was illegal.
The decision by the California Supreme Court sets a precedent and will not only shut down the car confiscation program in Stockton, but in dozens of other cities in California as well. Now there is no excuse for cities to claim they are operating within the law when they seize and sell vehicles of suspects who have not been found guilty of selling or manufacturing drugs.