Pubdate: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA) Page: B - 4 Copyright: 2007 Hearst Communications Inc. Contact: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388 Author: Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture) COURT SETBACK FOR CAR CONFISCATIONS A Richmond ordinance allowing police to seize cars that are used to solicit prostitution or drug deals is unconstitutional because it doesn't entitle the owner to an early hearing to try to reclaim the car, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday. The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco noted, however, that it's unlikely to have the last word, because the California Supreme Court is getting ready to hear multiple constitutional challenges to a similar ordinance in Stockton. The high court's ruling will also affect vehicle forfeiture laws in Oakland and Los Angeles. The Richmond ordinance, passed in January 2003, allows police to seize and sell any vehicle based on evidence that it was used to solicit prostitution or drugs, with the proceeds divided between police and the city attorney's office after lenders are repaid. Before the vehicle is permanently confiscated, the former owner is entitled to a jury trial on whether police had legal grounds for the seizure. Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Steven Austin overturned the ordinance in July 2005 on several grounds, including its distribution of the sale proceeds, which he found to be a conflict of interest for the police and city attorney. The appeals court disagreed with Austin on that issue, but said the ordinance doesn't guarantee a hearing to the owner until after the police or prosecutor's office has filed a notice that the vehicle will be forfeited and sold, a period that could last as long as a year. The Constitution entitles an owner of seized property to a prompt hearing to challenge the legality of the seizure, said Presiding Justice Ignazio Ruvolo in the 3-0 ruling. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake