AgdaPkt 2007-08-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

SA Page 16 The decision, found in O'Connell v. City of Stockton (City of Stockton) overturns a prior appellate court ruling, Horton v. City of Oakland (City of Oakland) which had upheld a city's right to enact such ordinances. In reliance on City of Oakland, many cities enacted similar seizure and forfeiture ordinances. City of Stockton puts the validity of these ordinances in question. Litigation Details In City of Stockton, plaintiff Kendra O'Connell challenged the constitutionality of the Stockton's "Seizure and Forfeiture of Nuisance Vehicles. ordinance. The ordinance allowed the city to seize any vehicle used to buy illegal drugs or solicit prostitution. The Supreme Court concluded the ordinance was pre-empted by state law. SpecifIcally, with respect to the ordinance's drug crimes provision, the Supreme Court held the state's Uniform Controlled Substances Act (USCA) was so thorough and detailed as to manifest the Legislature's intent to 'occupy the field' of penalizing crimes involving controlled substances. WIth respect to the ordinance's prostitution provision. the Supreme Court determined it was pre- empted by the California Vehicle Code. Justice Corrigan, joined by three other justices, authored a vigorous dissent to the majority's opinion. Echoing the city's arguments, Justice Corrigan stated, "It should not be the case that local governments require the permission of the state to protect their own citizens from nuisances that profoundly affect their quality of life and the quiet enjoyment of their own property." What's Next for Cities Although the Supreme Court's opinion limits locals' ability to enact seizure and forfeiture laws, the Legislature could choose to amend existing law to allow cities to take action in this area. As the Supreme Court pointed out, "Because the determination to preclude or to allow local regulation in a field addressed by state law resides exclusively with the state Legislature, that body can, of course, expressly authorize local entities to enact ordinance such as the one in this case that we conclude is pre-empted under existing law.. The League of California Cities submitted a "friend of the court" brief in this case In support of Stockton. The League thanks Claudia McGee Henry of the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office for drafting the brief. Office of Emergency Services Seeks Comments on State Hazard Mitigation Plan A draft of California's updated and enhanced State Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP) is now available for public review and comment through the Governor's Office of Emergency Services at www.oes.ca.QOv. OES is looking for feedback from local government officials on a number of different items in order to enhance the plan. Specifically, OES is interested in: · Best management practices in hazard mitigation: What are cities learning and doing well and how could this be better captured in the plan? · Unkages between state and local governments in the area of hazard mitigation: What relationships could be improved or strengthened over time in respect to the current arrangement? · Investments in hazard mitigation: What is taking place independent of the usual hazard mitigation grant funding stream? · Local priorities: What is essential in respect to state actions? · Initial impressions or general comments are also welCome Following the review period, closing on Friday, Sept. 7, OES will forward the updated and enhanced draft plan to the United States Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for review and approval. 5