A sharply divided California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments cannot confiscate the vehicles of drivers arrested on suspicion of buying drugs or soliciting prostitutes, a decision law enforcement officials say will greatly curtail their efforts to crack down on such crimes.
The ruling came against a Stockton ordinance that allowed the seizure of a vehicle immediately after the driver's arrest, but it essentially overturns the laws of more than two dozen cities from Oakland to Los Angeles.
In its 4-3 decision, the court ruled that only the state can mete out punishment for drug and prostitution offenses, and that without authorization from the Legislature, cities can't pass seizure ordinances that are harsher than state and federal laws. Even drivers suspected of buying a small amount of marijuana -- a low-level crime punishable by a $100 fine -- faced seizures under many ordinances.
These "are matters of statewide concern that our Legislature has comprehensively addressed ... leaving no room for further regulations at the local level," the court ruled.
Oakland became the first California city to adopt forfeiture laws in 1998. Since then, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, San Bernardino, Riverside, Inglewood and Ontario, among others, have enacted similar ordinances, according to lawyers in the case.
Attorney Mark Clausen, whose lawsuit against Stockton led to Thursday's ruling, said that "several thousand" automobiles have been seized throughout the state. He said most cities release the cars after drivers pay an impound fee ranging from $200 to $2,000.
"These ordinances were just a public relations stunt," Clausen said Thursday.
Los Angeles City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo had joined with Stockton and the California League of Cities to urge the high court to allow the seizure of vehicles used in suspected criminal activities. Stockton had declared the cars a nuisance and authorized their seizure and, after a hearing, their sale.
The majority decision by Justice Joyce L. Kennard was met with an impassioned dissent from Justice Carol A. Corrigan, who wrote that citizens should not be forced "to share their neighborhoods with pimps, prostitutes and drug dealers who use their streets as a bazaar for illegal transactions."
Corrigan said cities should have the authority to protect themselves from this form of urban blight.
