Sohigian v. City of Oakland 3/24/06 CA1/3

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: A103031

Case Date: 06/14/2006

Preview:Filed 3/24/06 Sohigan v. City of Oakland CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

ARAM SOHIGIAN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF OAKLAND et al., Defendants and Respondents. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 2002-065397) A103031

Here we consider for the second time the City of Oakland's ordinance authorizing forfeiture of cars used in soliciting prostitution or purchasing controlled substances. We previously concluded the ordinance was not preempted by state law in Horton v. City of Oakland (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 580 (Horton). In the current appeal, Aram Sohigian and Sam and Carolyn Horton renew the preemption question and raise additional challenges to the forfeiture law. We decline to reconsider the preemption question. We conclude appellants adequately alleged Excessive Fines Clause violations, but appellants' claims regarding a right to a prompt post-seizure hearing are now moot. We reverse in part and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND Oakland Municipal Code, Ordinance 9.56 (the Ordinance) was enacted in 1997. It authorizes the seizure, forfeiture and sale of vehicles used to solicit prostitution, purchase drugs or in an attempt of either offense. (Oak. Mun. Code,

Download Sohigian v. City of Oakland 3/24/06 CA1/3.pdf