Fear Not Law Articles: HERNANDEZ v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO Part I

HERNANDEZ v

HERNANDEZ v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Filed 2/15/07

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

COPY

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

DANIEL HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

CITY OF SACRAMENTO et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

C047180

(Super. Ct. No. 02AS07396)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Loren E. McMaster, J. Affirmed.

Samuel L. Jackson, City Attorney, and H. Michon Johnson, Senior Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Appellants.

Mark T. Clausen for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Can Sacramento, a charter city, dilute the procedural protections accorded by state laws to those who forfeit the vehicles they allegedly used to facilitate prostitution or various drug transactions? We conclude that because the state laws fully occupy the fields of vehicle forfeiture involving prostitution and drug transactions, areas of statewide concern, they preempt Sacramento's nuisance ordinance that, unlike state law, allows proof by a preponderance of the evidence, does not require a criminal conviction, does not protect innocent owners of the vehicle, and provides none of the guidelines â€

Description	Charter city may not dilute the procedural protections accorded by state laws to those who forfeit the vehicles they allegedly used to facilitate prostitution or various drug transactions; forfeiture for those reasons is a matter of statewide concern as to which state law including requirements that requisite facts be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that the illegal activities result in a criminal conviction, and that innocent owners of the vehicle be protected -- preempts conflicting local enactments.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.