1-20-2010 Alabama:
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Adults using a computer to solicit a juvenile for sexual activity could find themselves without a home, car or computer.
The Alabama House voted 95-0 to pass a bill by Democratic Rep. Ken Guin of Carbon Hill that allows authorities to confiscate the property of a person convicted of using a computer to lure a young person to meet for sexual reasons. An exception is the house, car or other property can't be confiscated if it is needed by a spouse or child who did not know the computer was being used to solicit a child.
The bill was originally sponsored by Democratic Rep. Lea Fite of Jacksonville. Fite died of a heart attack in October. The bill was named the Lea Fite Child Protection Act. ..Source.. WHNT19News
January 20, 2010
Ala. House passes bill to seize property of sex offenders who use computer to lure victims
October 28, 2009
CO- Police crush sex offender's car; warn of more
I wonder what they will CRUSH when a police officer -from headquarters- does the same as this fellow did?
10-28-2009 Colorado:
DENVER - Officials in the police department wanted to figure out the most eye-catching way to make a statement about pursuing sex offenders. They came up with the idea of a press conference, with the main event being the smashing of a 1998 Mitsubishi Eclipse.
"It would be important for us to actually make a public point here," Captain Judith Will said while standing in front of the car that was painted red with one white stripe going down the center.
That car used to belong to 37-year-old Balazs Toth. In June, he pleaded guilty to criminal attempt to commit sexual assault on a child. Police arrested Toth in December of 2008 after he tried to meet up with a 14-year-old girl with whom he'd been chatting online.
He drove his car to the parking lot of a fast food restaurant, planning to have sex with the girl.
The meeting was actually an undercover sting by Denver Police.
"Because of the severity and type of crime, we felt it would be more important to crush the car and make sure the car is never used in a criminal offense again," Detective John Brown, who handled the case as part of Denver's Public Nuisance Abatement Unit, said.
The unit filed civil charges against the car. It regularly files charges against inanimate objects.
The unit was created by an ordinance in 1994 and targets things described as: "Any parcel of real property, personal property, or motor vehicle on or in which any of the following illegal activity occurs, or which is used to commit, conduct, promote, facilitate, or aid the commission of or flight from any of the following activities."
Those activities include 22 offenses, which range from drug or weapons possession, to repeat traffic offenders and sex offenders. Anyone charged with those crimes could have their cars crushed or property seized, as part of the law.
Sometimes the seized property is a building or a business.
Not all cars are crushed as part of the ordinance. Some cars are returned to lien holders or owners if a settlement is reached. Some of the vehicles are auctioned off.
"From a standpoint, financially, for the city and county of Denver, it makes sense to try to sell these vehicles at auction and get those financial benefits to help the general fund," Will said.
The captain added that Toth's car was not one that the city wanted to auction off. Instead, officials chose to crush it.
"We want to get the message out there. We're not going to tolerate this, and we're going to come after you," she said.
Sex offenders were added to the nuisance abatement unit's list five years ago. Investigators think this is the first time that police have crushed a car belonging to a sex offender.
There could be more to come.
"We are going to take these kinds of actions in the future for this kind of criminal activity," Brown said.
Police say their ultimate mission is to help children.
"Many of us are parents," Division Chief David Fisher said. "All of us are concerned. And everyone in our community is concerned about the most vulnerable people in our society, our children."
Toth, a former Catholic school teacher, was sentenced to 90 days in jail and five years of probation. ..Source.. by Dan Boniface TaRhonda Thomas
February 23, 2008
CA- Court Strikes Forfeiture Ordinance for Cars Used to Solicit Prostitutes
1-9-2008 California:
A City of Los Angeles ordinance authorizing the seizure and forfeiture of vehicles used to solicit prostitution is expressly preempted by state law, this district’s Court of Appeal held yesterday.
Citing the recent California Supreme Court decision in O’Connell v. City of Stockton (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1061 that the California Vehicle Code preempted a similar ordinance, Div. One held that it was compelled to affirm the judgment of Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Victor Greenberg that the City of Los Angeles could not maintain forfeiture proceedings against Richard Reinsdorf’s 2000 Jeep Cherokee.
“Because the City of Los Angeles’s ordinance is substantively indistinguishable…,” Justice Miriam A. Vogel wrote, “it follows ineluctably that our ordinance is also expressly preempted by state law and that the judgment in favor of Reinsdorf must be affirmed.”
No Fees
However, in a separate portion of the opinion, Vogel wrote that Reinsdorf was not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees for his successful appeal because “it wasn’t Richard Reinsdorf who conferred a benefit on the defendants whose cars were wrongfully seized by the City of Los Angeles — it was Kendra O’Connell, the plaintiff in O’Connell.”
Reinsdorf was arrested for soliciting prostitution and his Jeep seized in April of 2005. The city instituted forfeiture proceedings against his vehicle under the ordinance the following month.
The ordinance provides that any vehicle used to solicit or otherwise engage in an act of prostitution is a nuisance and may be seized by the city if it has probable cause to believe the vehicle was used for such a purpose. Once a seizure occurs, the ordinance requires that the seizing agency conduct an immediate investigation, and that notice of the seizure and the right to a post-seizure hearing to challenge the seizure’s validity be provided to the vehicle’s owner.
Reinsdorf challenged the ordinance, claiming that it was preempted under a Third District Court of Appeal ruling in O’Connell v. City of Stockton (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 831, and the trial court agreed, granting judgment against the city and awarding Reinsdorf attorney fees in the amount of $49,735.90.
Oakland Ordinance
The city appealed, relying on Horton v. City of Oakland (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 580, in which the First District Court rejected a similar preemption challenge to a City of Oakland ordinance authorizing the civil forfeiture of vehicles involved in soliciting prostitution or acquiring drugs.
The Court of Appeal for this district initially rejected Reinsdorf’s argument. However, the Supreme Court had already granted review in O’Connell to resolve the split between the First and Third districts, so it granted review to Reinsdorf, held the case pending its decision, and then transferred the case back to the Second district with instructions to vacate its decision and reconsider in light of O’Connell.
Writing for the Court of Appeal, Vogel quoted the Supreme Court’s decision in O’Connell to point out that the California Vehicle Code generally prohibits local regulation of “matters covered” by the code, but that it allowed a city or county to adopt an ordinance establishing a five-year pilot program to implement procedures for declaring a motor vehicle to be a public nuisance when used in the commission of certain crimes.
However, she noted that while the pilot program allowed for the development of procedure to enjoin and abate such nuisances, it allowed only for removal of the vehicle — not forfeiture.
“There being no express legislative authorization for any other form of local regulation of the matter…,” she quoted, “Vehicle Code section 21 precludes an ordinance…which seeks to regulate vehicle use in soliciting prostitution by requiring forfeiture of the vehicle. Under Vehicle Code section 21, therefore, the City’s ordinance is expressly preempted by state law.”
In a separate portion of the opinion, the court affirmed Reinsdorf’s original attorney fee award, but rebuffed his contention that he had succeeded in enforcing an important right affecting the public benefit which entitled him to additional fees for the cost of his appeal.
“Reinsdorf’s case just happened to be in the pipeline when the Supreme Court granted review in O’Connell,” Vogel wrote, “and today’s declaration that the Los Angeles ordinance is invalid adds nothing to the equation.”
Vogel was joined in her opinion by Justices Robert M. Mallano and Frances Rothschild.
A spokesperson for the city declined comment pending a review of the decision, and counsel for Reinsdorf could not be reached for comment.
The case is City of Los Angeles v. 2000 Jeep Cherokee, B185673. ..more.. by STEVEN M. ELLIS, Staff Writer
