The decision that came down is O'Connell vs. the City of Stockton. I'm not entirely sure of the background of the case, but at issue was a city ordinance. This ordinance gave police the authority to impound and eventually seize vehicles used by people suspected of soliciting prostitutes or purchasing illegal narcotics.
A State Wide Problem
These ordinances are in place across the State of California. The logic behind them is this: Especially in high crime areas, the potential buyers are more easily dissuaded than the sellers. The harsh penalties for participating in these activities keeps the buyers away and makes participating in criminal enterprises as a provider of goods or services less lucrative and therefore the criminals will either find better legal opportunities or move their enterprises elsewhere.The logic is difficult to argue with. Law enforcement all around the state is of the opinion that these ordinances are very effective in controlling crime. The cities that implement these ordinances also gain financial benefit from the sale of seized property, which means that they can better afford the necessary law enforcement resources to manage these high crime communities.
A State Wide Solution
The problem with these ordinances is that there is already in place a vast state driven strategy for dealing with these types of crimes. This is where Kelly O'Connell's legal strategy gets interesting. She lays out that the local ordinances exceed the strategy set forth by the state, and the fact that when city ordinances are in conflict with state laws, the state laws always prevail.State Law requires conviction prior to asset seizure, not merely suspicion. It also specifies seizures associated with felony level offenses, but these seizure provisions are not made for misdemeanor crimes.
The city of Stockton plainly saw that State law was not sufficient in their city and enacted tougher local rules. This decision makes such local activism against the rules.
Far Reaching
The income generated from these programs state wide is immense. It will certainly have a budget affect on most major cities in the state. It creates confusion within law enforcement as to when they are able to seize property. What is yet to be seen is how this decision will effect crime within the community.Aside from drug and prostitution seizures, this decision has effect on any number of city ordinances active state wide where a similar situation has occurred - the state has a defined strategy for the problem, but the local legislative body has determined that state law is insufficient to address the problem within their community.
I don't know if I agree with this decision or not. Property seizures are not something I'm especially fond of. Property seizures for suspected crimes as opposed to convicted crimes are something I can't get behind at all. There's also the issue that the penalty many of these people would be facing is less than $100, but the property seizure could amount to more than $100,000.00. This aspect of it I actually could support but there is room for debate.
But this decision isn't all about property seizures. It's about whether or not local legislative bodies can exceed state law to deal with problems that affect their community differently than they do the state as a whole. I realize that their is a chain of authority, but it is counter-intuitive to think that the city council does not have the right to address any issues where there is an existing state strategy. The winners in this one are the lawyers. There are a lot of laws on the books all around the state that are similar in nature.
I expect that within a year or two, we'll see several decisions that provide clarification as to the actual authority of local government.
What visitors have to say about California Supreme Court says No to Drug Seizures
