Court Order Targeting Drug Dealing Attacked : Civil suit: O.C. man should not have to announce himself as a dope-peddling suspect, rights advocates say.

Civil rights advocates Thursday criticized an unusual Orange County court order forcing a condominium owner to post signs on his property saying that his home must not be used for drug dealing.

Legal scholars and defense attorneys said the order, sought by the city to curb what police allege is a yearlong pattern of drug sales, may violate homeowner Garrie Charles Culver’s right to free speech--in this case his right not to be forced to announce to his neighborhood that police suspect him of peddling drugs.

“Just as you have a right to speak, the (U.S.) Supreme Court has found that you also have a right not to speak,” said University of Southern California law professor Erwin Chemerinsky. “In this case, not only is the court forcing him to speak, but forcing him to speak in a way that is quite embarrassing.”

The city of Fountain Valley obtained the controversial court order against Culver after filing a civil suit alleging that his condominium had become a public nuisance. It has asked the court to order Culver’s residence closed for a year, fine Culver $25,000 for each proven drug sale, seize and sell his household belongings and require him to pay the city’s legal bills.

So far, the court has merely issued a temporary order that Culver not have, use or sell drugs at the condominium. He is also required to post the signs.

Police say that neighbors have complained for a year about alleged drug dealing from the home, that unnamed confidential informants have made drug purchases there, and that despite police pressure the drug trafficking has continued. Culver says he is innocent and a victim of “hearsay.”

A year ago, Culver and his sister-in-law, Laura Ann Riley, were cited for possession of less than one ounce of marijuana, a misdemeanor. Culver said he paid a $140 fine to settle the matter, which he described as “less than a traffic ticket.”

Although police have searched his Fountain Valley condominium three times in the past year, they have not found sufficient evidence to charge either Culver or anyone else in the home with selling illegal drugs, a felony.

The preliminary injunction, signed by Orange County Superior Court Judge C. Robert Jameson on Monday, orders Culver to “post a sign on the property, visible to those who approach the entrance to the premises . . . stating that the premises are under court order and are not to be used for the sale of illegal drugs.”

Though Culver insists that he is innocent, he has complied with the court order and erected signs that read, in part: “No illegal drugs will be sold or given to any persons entering or leaving premises. These premises are being watched by FVPD,” the Fountain Valley Police Department.

Critics say that by pursuing civil instead of criminal action against Culver, the city will find it easier to punish Culver for his alleged behavior. To win a civil court action, authorities would need demonstrate only that “a preponderance of the evidence” suggested that Culver was dealing drugs from his home. A criminal conviction would require proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Such civil suits have become common in Oakland, where the city attorney’s office has brought 20 civil cases against property owners in the last two years, Assistant City Atty. Charles E. Vose said. The tactic has never been challenged on First Amendment grounds, he said.

Federal authorities routinely press civil forfeiture cases to strip suspected drug dealers of ill-gotten gains. But foes say such lawsuits deny people who have not been convicted of any crime the constitutional protections afforded criminal defendants.

“I guess there’s absolutely no limit to the creative absurdity of the (political) right,” said Paul Gabbert, a Santa Monica defense attorney.

Even if Culver were convicted of selling drugs, he probably could not be forced to post the equivalent of a scarlet letter outside his home as a condition of probation, Gabbert said.

“This is holding him up to hatred and obloquy in his community that they would not necessarily know about if he were convicted,” the attorney said.

Jesse Choper, former dean of the UC Berkeley law school, also said that the Culver case presents “serious constitutional problems.”

“To force anyone to make a statement or to post signs on a residence, even when one has been charged, tried and convicted of something, raises real problems,” Choper said.

At the moment, however, Culver appears ill-equipped to challenge the order. On Thursday, he said that he is blind, lives on social security payments, and cannot afford an attorney--though had he been charged with criminal drug dealing, he would have been entitled to a public defender.

“The judge told me I can’t get an attorney in a civil case,” he said. “I don’t know what I’m going to do.”

Carol Sobel, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in Los Angeles, said the group will examine the facts but made no commitment to take the case.

Fountain Valley City Atty. Alan R. Burns said the lawsuit was authorized by the City Council in June and falls well within the 1972 Drug Abatement Act, which specifically allows the posting of signs on suspected drug premises.

“The Legislature enacted the drug abatement statutes to provide law enforcement with a powerful tool to combat these illicit activities because ordinary law enforcement techniques can be ineffective,” Burns argued in court documents.

Fountain Valley Police Officer Paul McInnis described just such frustrations. McInnis said Thursday that only small amounts of drugs were kept at the Culver home at any one time, and that the drugs were sold only to a small clientele, making it difficult for police to make a felony drug arrest.

“We know they’re selling it,” McInnis said. “We’ve observed it, we’ve made controlled buys, we know people who have been there to buy it and were arrested leaving the place or they admitted buying narcotics there or were under the influence of it.”