In O’Connell v. City of Stockton, (— Cal.Rptr.3d —, 2007 WL 2127704, Cal., July 26, 2007) the California Supreme Court considered a challenge to a city law that allowed the seizure and forfeiture of vehicles used during attempted drug purchases or while soliciting prostitution.
The Court ruled that because State law already comprehensively addresses the areas of drug trafficking and prostitution, and specifically outlines procedures for vehicle forfeiture, the Legislature has left no room for local ordinances on those topics and the ordinances are therefore preempted by state law and are thus void.
Facts
The City of Stockton (“City”) enacted an ordinance allowing city police to seize any vehicle used to solicit an act of prostitution, or to acquire or attempt to acquire any controlled substance, and allowing for the sale of those vehicles with proceeds going to local prosecuting and law enforcement agencies.
Taxpayer Kendra O’Connell filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance and seeking to enjoin its enforcement. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the law violated due process and that it was preempted by state law. The City appealed to the California Supreme Court.
Decision
The Supreme court said the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act (“UCSA”), when considered in its entirety, comprehensively defines and sets penalties for crimes involving controlled substances. Furthermore, it defines circumstances under which vehicles and other items are subject to forfeiture: specifically, when there is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that the vehicle was used to facilitate the manufacture, possession, or sale of specified amounts of illegal substances.
By contrast, the City’s ordinance sharply conflicts with the state law, by allowing vehicle forfeiture when there is simply a “preponderance of evidence” that the vehicle was used to “attempt to acquire” any amount of any controlled substance. The Court ruled the comprehensive nature of UCSA in defining drug crimes, and specifying penalties including forfeiture, demonstrates the Legislature’s intent to preclude local governments from enacting more stringent forfeiture laws.
Additionally, the Court noted the Vehicle Code sets out standards by which vehicles may be declared nuisances and forcibly removed. Section 21 specifies that Vehicle Code provisions must apply uniformly throughout the state and that local governments may not enact laws on Vehicle Code matters unless expressly authorized within the Code. Section 22659.5 establishes a five-year pilot program under which local governments may deem a vehicle used in prostitution a nuisance, but it does not provide for forfeiture of the vehicle. It therefore precludes a law like the City’s, the Court said.
Drug trafficking and prostitution are matters of statewide concern that the Legislature has comprehensively addressed through Penal Code and Vehicle Code provisions, “leaving no further room for further regulation at the local level,” the court concluded.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal was affirmed, and the City’s law was therefore void.