09/26/1988 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Randy Prince, 1736 Olive Street, spoke against the ordinance. He feels the ordinance is part of an admirable attempt to stop drug use in America, but feels this law will work no better than other attempts to control drugs by stopping the dealers. He said controlling drugs at the point of use is now considered to be a better solution to the drug problem. Mr. Prince said there is debate about whether this ordinance is constitutional because it interferes with personal freedom. He said the question councilors must consider is whether it is better to do everything possible to stop drugs, even if it may be unconstitutional, or whether it is better to do everything possible to protect the values of liberty and justice upon which America is based. Mr. Prince felt that if the council passed this ordinance, it would make young people cynical about the law because it contradicts the core principle of our country. He said he is confident that the effort to stop drug use will work better without the property forfeiture ordinance. William Conde, 23005 North Coburg Road, believes that under the Oregon State Constitution it is unlawful to confiscate one's realty for any conviction. Mr. Conde pointed out that the way forfeiture ordinances work, the arresting agency splits the proceeds with the agency under whose law the property has been confiscated. For this reason, he feels the attempt to pass this ordinance has more to do with money than with trying to help anyone or to make a better society. Mr. Conde said there is no room in society for laws such as this one. He said if the council is truly concerned about people and e drug addictions, they should approach the issue with more understanding and compassion. He said the longer and harder law enforcement agencies crack down on drugs, the nastier the drug problem in society will become. Mayor Obie closed the public hearing. In response to a question from Ms. Schue, City Attorney Tim Sercombe said the issue of whether this ordinance is constitutional comes up in several ways under the Oregon Constitution. He said some of those constitutional issues are now being tested in an appeal of Lane County's forfeiture ordinance. Mr. Sercombe said the City Attorney's office feels this ordinance is constitutional under both the Oregon and Federal constitutions. He said there is not clear judicial precedence on some parts of the ordinance, however. Mr. Sercombe said the City Attorney's office does not believe that Article I, Section 25 of the Oregon Constitution with respect to corruption of blood and forfeiture of state prevents this type of ordinance. He said there are also issues about whether this process is criminal or civil; the effect of this classification will determine the process due to a person who is the subject of a forfeiture ordinance. Mr. Sercombe said the City Attorney's office believes this is a civil process and that criminal procedures do not apply. He said another issue is whether the State law has preempted local law-making authority in this area because of its classification as a criminal law. He . MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 26, 1988 Page 2 .