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)

STORY CONTINUED FROM PART I…….

2.   Uniform Treatment Throughout the State

     In ascertaining whether the drug-related vehicle forfeiture statute preempts municipal regulation, we must next examine whether the subject requires uniform treatment throughout the state.  (In re Lane (1962) 58 Cal.2d 99, 111 (conc. opn. of Gibson, C.J.).)  Sacramento claims that it responded to the unique complaints of its citizens to remove blight from their neighborhoods.  We find little, if any, evidence in this record to document that Sacramento's problems differ to any significant extent from those of other cities, and such a proposition is particularly suspect given the number and similarity of the municipal ordinances enacted by local governments throughout the state.  (See, e.g., Horton, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 584; Stockton Mun. Code, ch. 5, part XXV, Seizure and Forfeiture of Nuisance Vehicles, § 5-1000 et seq.)  Moreover, Sacramento would have us believe that the Legislature intended to permit ordinances allowing forfeiture of a vehicle where an alleged petty drug buyer is acquitted but to require a serious drug dealer to be convicted before forfeiting a vehicle.  Similarly, Sacramento's argument implies that the Legislature envisioned local ordinances that provide no exemptions for innocent owners when their vehicles are used to buy a small amount of drugs while exempting those innocent owners whose vehicles were used to sell large amounts of drugs.

     The court in Horton held that the Legislature's failure to expressly include drug buyers within the drug-related forfeiture statute meant it failed to fully occupy the field and did not preclude ordinances tailor-made for individual communities.  (Horton, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at pp. 586-587.)  The court rejected the notion that the exclusion was intentional and consistent with the Legislature's objective to restrain law enforcement and limit forfeiture to the bigger players in the drug trade.  (Ibid.)  We agree with Hernandez that the Legislature's exclusion of petty buyers is more indicative of an intent to occupy the field than to allow municipalities to enact more Draconian forfeiture ordinances targeted at the lowest participants in the illegal drug food chain.  We cannot accept Horton's conclusion that the Legislature left â€