Issue
In O’Connell v. City of Stockton (2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4814, Cal.App. 3 Dist., Apr. 22, 2005), the California Court of Appeal considered the constitutionality of an ordinance that allows a city to forfeit motor vehicles used to solicit prostitution or purchase illegal drugs.
Facts
The City of Stockton (City) passed an ordinance that permits it to seize and hold for forfeiture motor vehicles that are used to solicit prostitution or acquire controlled substances. The vehicle may be seized upon a peace officer’s finding of probable cause that the ordinance has been violated. Taxpayer, Kendra O’Connell, filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance. The trial court upheld the ordinance.
Appellate Court Decision
The Court of Appeal held that the ordinance violates procedural due process because it does not provide for a reasonably prompt post-seizure hearing to test the peace officer’s finding of probable cause. The city attorney or district attorney (the “prosecutor”) makes the determination of whether to seek forfeiture; however, the ordinance allows the prosecutor to take as much as one year to commence the proceedings. Furthermore, there are no time limits on when the prosecutor must give notice of seizure and intended forfeiture to persons with an interest in the vehicle. The Court calculated that, even if the prosecutor and the courts act with diligence, owners of seized vehicles face a minimum of six to seven weeks before having a hearing. The ordinance also fails to provide the owner with an opportunity to post a bond in order to retain the vehicle pending a decision. The ordinance’s failure to assure a reasonably prompt forfeiture hearing, combined with its failure to provide for a probable cause hearing, results in a lack of procedural due process that makes the ordinance unconstitutional.
The Court also concluded that the ordinance is preempted by state forfeiture laws. The California Uniform Controlled Substances Act (UCSA) provides specific detailed legislation for the civil forfeiture of vehicles used in connection with the drug trade, and the UCSA is binding on local authorities. City’s ordinance intrudes into this area because it authorizes forfeiture under circumstances where the UCSA would not allow forfeiture, loosens the requisite standard of proof, omits due process protections for innocent parties, and divides up the net proceeds among local law enforcement agencies. The ordinance as it relates to prostitution is also preempted by state law. Vehicle Code § 22659.5 permits a City to adopt a five-year pilot program that would implement a procedure for declaring as public nuisances vehicles used to solicit prostitution. City went beyond the authority granted by § 22659.5 – City’s ordinance is permanent; it is more severe because it allows forfeiture rather than temporary impoundment; and it covers acts that would not result in impoundment under § 22659.5. (It should be noted the Court disagreed with Horton v. City of Oakland (2000) 82 Cal. App. 4th 580, on this issue.)
The Court ordered the trial court to enter judgment for Taxpayer declaring the ordinance invalid.