ACLU Sues Oakland to Block Enforcement of Unconstitutional Vehicle Seizure Ordinance


For Immediate Release: July 21, 1998

Charging that the City of Oakland vehicle seizure and forfeiture ordinance violates state law, the ACLU-NC today (Tuesday, July 21) filed a petition for writ of mandate asking the Alameda County Superior Court to order the City to stop enforcing the measure.

The Oakland Police Department has used the ordinance, passed in 1997, as a tool to seize automobiles allegedly used to solicit acts of prostitution or acquire illegal drugs - even in instances where there is no criminal conviction. The ordinance allows the City to sell the seized vehicles, with the proceeds of the sale going directly to local law enforcement agencies.

The ordinance flies in the face of two statutes (one concerning prostitution and one concerning drug-related offenses) passed by the California Legislature mandating that law enforcement may only seize property when there has been a conviction. According to the California Constitution, state law prohibits such conflicting local law.

The state's asset seizure law was passed in 1994 specifically to prevent innocent people from losing their property without due process. As the author of the legislation stated at the time, "The purpose of this bill is to put in place the necessary protections to ensure that people's property rights, and due process rights, are protected. The war on drugs should not be won at the expense of our hard won freedoms."

The ACLU filed today's taxpayers' suit, Horton, et al. v. City of Oakland on behalf of Oakland residents who oppose the ordinance. Taxpayers may file lawsuits, acting in the public interest, when they believe their taxes are being spent in an unlawful manner.

"Because the revenue from civil forfeiture goes directly into the budgets of local law enforcement agencies, the state Legislature recognized a potential for abuse and enacted procedural protections for property owners," said ACLU-NC managing attorney Alan Schlosser. "Oakland is not free to just ignore state law and implement its own asset forfeiture operation that has none of these protections."

The ACLU-NC suit charges that the ordinance violates Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution which forbids local government from enacting ordinances which are in conflict with state law. The state laws in question are:

• California Vehicle Code (Section 22659.5) which establishes a five-year pilot program authorizing certain cities (including Oakland) to seize vehicles for certain prostitution-related offenses. However, the law specifies that such action may only take place when there is a conviction of a crime (and not just an arrest). It also stipulates that seized vehicles may only be held for a maximum of 48 hours.

• The California Health and Safety Code (Sections 11469 11495) which allows for the seizure of vehicles involved in illegal drug transactions. Like the state vehicle code described above, it also requires conviction before property can be seized. In addition, the statute only provides for vehicle seizure if large amounts of illegal drugs are involved and contains a provision that requires that the city prove that the vehicle was used without the owner's knowledge and consent.

The Oakland ordinance contains no protections for innocent owners. In fact, many registered owners who have lost their cars under the Oakland ordinance were not even present when the alleged crime took place.

"It is understandable that Oakland should take measures to deter crime in its neighborhoods. However, ignoring basic legal standards established by the Legislature to protect individual rights and innocent people is the wrong way to pursue this goal," said Schlosser.

According to public records obtained by the ACLU-NC, at least 17 of the seizures in the last few months were triggered by the attempted purchase of extremely small amounts of marijuana - $10 to $30 worth. Absent Oakland's ordinance, these individuals, if found guilty, would have only been fined a maximum of $100. However, under the new ordinance the City can collect the entire value of the cars allegedly involved in addition to substantial towing and storage fees.

In Oakland, after various towing, storage and administrative fees are covered, the police department, the district attorney's office and the city attorney split the remaining proceeds.

Before filing the lawsuit, the ACLU-NC repeatedly expressed civil rights concerns about the ordinance. In March, the State Legislative Counsel issued an advisory opinion on the matter concluding that the Oakland vehicle seizure ordinance "is void as contradictory to state law." The ACLU then asked the Oakland City Council to repeal the ordinance. They refused.

Oakland is the only city that is implementing its own local asset seizure ordinance. Press reports indicate that other California cities are watching the Oakland experiment and considering their own forfeiture ordinances. "Unless this lawsuit is successful, we can expect to see a proliferation of broad local forfeiture ordinances which will seriously disregard the guidelines and protections of state law," Schlosser said.

The plaintiffs are represented by ACLU-NC managing attorney Alan Schlosser and ACLU-NC Police Practices Project Director John Crew as well as ACLU-NC cooperating attorney Michael Anderson.