Making Drug Dealers Pay for Law Enforcement, continued
Furthermore, this can be done without having to meet the higher burdenof-proof standards found in criminal proceedings. Qualifying cities should consider adding the Unfair Competition Law to civil nuisance abatement actions whenever possible because it not only motivates drug dealers to stop their illegal behavior, but also allows for civil penalties that may actually force the perpetrators to pay cities for their misconduct.
Who Can Sue Under the Unfair Competition Law By its terms, government enforcement actions under the Unfair Competition Law may be brought by potentially hundreds of law enforcement officials within California. Such actions may be brought by: • The state attorney general; • District attorneys;
The law can be a powerful weapon in the war on drugs as it offers many valuable remedies related to injunctions, restitution, civil penalties, cumulative remedies and attorneys’ fees. • City attorneys for each of the four cities with populations of more than 750,000 (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose and San Francisco); and • Full-time city prosecutors in cities that use full-time attorneys to prosecute municipal code violations if they first obtain the consent of the local district attorney.
Unlawful Business Practice Defined While the Unfair Competition Law has been used to stop the sale of illicit drugs, it appears to have been confined to those situations where another business entity is involved. However, the statute does not strictly require such limitations. The law defines unfair competition to “mean and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” The law is broad in its scope, encompassing anything that can properly be called a business practice and at the same time is forbidden by law. Thus, selling illegal drugs is a violation of the statute and can be enjoined as long as it rises to the level of a business practice. The statute borrows violations of other laws and treats those violations as unlawful business practices when committed as part of a business activity.
Lower Standard of Proof As with all civil actions, the standard of proof in civil penalty proceedings is not “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but the lower “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial does not apply to a governmental action seeking civil penalties. The government also does not have to prove that any of the victims of the unlawful business practice suffered actual damages as a result of the activity.
Powerful Remedies The courts have given a liberal reading to the Unfair Competition Law’s penalty continued on page 18
8
League of California Cities
www.cacities.org