Twisting LAPD Impound Policy to Favor Illegals
It has been at once amusing and saddening to witness the debate here in Los Angeles over how police officers should respond when, having made a traffic stop, they find the driver to be unlicensed. At issue is the decision an officer must make as to whether or not to impound the car as authorized by California state law and, if the car is impounded, for how long. It’s been amusing to see so many people twist themselves into legal and intellectual contortions in arguing that cars driven by illegal immigrants should not be impounded, and saddening to know that no matter how tenuous their grip may be on the legal and intellectual arguments, these people will prevail regardless. We’re talking about Los Angeles, after all, where political agendas often trump common sense and even the law.
In two recent columns (here and here), I’ve discussed LAPD Chief Charlie Beck’s proposal to change the department’s policy governing how officers deal with cars driven by unlicensed drivers. Beck has maintained that impounding cars driven by unlicensed drivers, many of whom in Los Angeles are illegal immigrants, is “unfair.” Under a previous version of his proposed new policy, officers would have been required to wait for a “reasonable period of time,” whatever that might mean, for the driver to summon a licensed driver to whom the car would be released.
Faced with a level of backlash he clearly did not expect, Beck has added further modifications to his proposal, including the requirements that a licensed driver be “immediately” available to take charge of a stopped car, and that the unlicensed driver show valid identification and proof of insurance. Another requirement is that the unlicensed driver have no previous convictions for the same offense. All of these conditions must be met before a car can be released.
These changes may sound reasonable on first reading, but further examination is warranted. There will surely arise a question of the meaning of the word “immediately,” as will questions of what constitutes valid identification and proof of insurance. Insurance papers are easily forged, and police officers in the field have no access to any database that would allow them to verify that a policy is in effect. And Beck proposes that LAPD officers recognize Matricula Consular cards, issued by Mexican consulate offices in the United States, as valid identification.
This is laughable, as Chief Beck should be expected to know. Testifying before a House Judiciary subcommittee in June 2003, Steven C. McCraw, assistant director of the FBI’s Office of Intelligence, addressed the question of Matricula Consular ID cards. “The U.S. Government has done an extensive amount of research on the Matricula Consular,” he said, “to assess its viability as a reliable means of identification. The Department of Justice and the FBI have concluded that the Matricula Consular is not a reliable form of identification, due to the non-existence of any means of verifying the true identity of the card holder.” His reasons for reaching this conclusion are many and varied, and they should call into question Beck’s blithe reassurances that LAPD officers will only release a car when they have verified the unlicensed driver’s identity.
And now another obstacle has been placed in the path of Beck’s quest for “fairness.” California’s Legislative Counsel Bureau, which provides legal guidance to state lawmakers, has issued an opinion to the effect that when a police officer has impounded a car driven by an unlicensed driver, it should be held for 30 days rather than, as Chief Beck would have it, for as long as it takes the registered owner to come and retrieve it.
Amusing? Well, color me humorless. Our country is being flushed down the toilet of PC deception and I find nothing amusing in one more example of same.
You’re a shameless bigot, Jack Dunphy.
I guess “Jack” is disgusted at having to scrape up the bodies left by drunk driving illegals. Perhaps you will be a little less tolerant after you experience loss from that particular ethnic strata.
Yes, it’s so bigoted to expect illegals to comply with even the most basic laws, to the point that illegals in this case get more benefit of a doubt than citizens. Also crazy that law-abiding citizens have to register and insure their vehicles and pay taxes. At those prices where can I sign up to be an illegal?
I have the same problem with the police taking an illegal immigrants car as I have with the state confiscating a chunk of a rich person’s estate when he dies.
In both cases, ‘we the people’ are punishing a bad person in our eyes, but its not ‘we the people’ that are getting the loot. Its a govt agency.
If you feel so strongly then put the illegal in jail, don’t use it as an excuse to take his property. Unless you plan to send me a cut. Then I might change my mind.
I think a public safety case can be made to taking the car and it’s certainly cheaper than jail, which is expensively dumb, but even better is take the car and deport them.
Of course they’re letting the Mexicans off.
Duh, it works like this:
Illegal’s are individually cash poor, but as a group, politically “rich”. All the “free stuff” that flows to them as a group is skimmed by The State. Think administration costs, community outreach programs, policy panels, think tanks and assorted “initiatives” that need funding. Lots of lucrative “make-work” for The State because of them…way more cost effective than seizing their individual junker-mobiles. Cars that they will most likely forfeit because they aren’t worth the cost of retrieving.
For the rest of us, its an “opportunity tax” for The State to impose…Tax PAYING Americans will most likely have the funds to retrieve their cars, and there is no “political damage” in harassing the White Folk. Its always, purely about revenue.
Why else would they go from 1.0 to 0.8 for Drunk Driving? Someone did the math, and figured out how much money they were “losing”, so they simply monetized the “opportunity”.
The cops? They’re just the Union Bums With Guns, doing the hands-on dirty work… Standing out in the hot sun, collecting “Opportunity taxes” for their Masters.
A brand new pickup truck hits a car in a shopping center parking lot. The cops show up and write the report with a drivers license. The man in the pickup truck speaks very broken english. When woman that is hit calls the insurance carrier they first say no problem the driver is insured. When the woman submits estimates to the insurance office they then claim they don’t know the man. The diffence is the woman’s husband is a sheriff so he gets into the investigation. Come to find out the man’s license was a case of stolen identity and the city cop knew it, the insurance company took this man’s money so he could show proof of insurance to purchase the new truck so their background check revealed it, and the car dealership took the man’s money (I will bet he paid cash) for the pickup truck. Who gets bent over? The woman, her insurance company, her higher insurance premiums and what are left of the U.S. taxpayers. And there are idiots that this has not happened to in their families yet so they think this is some form of compassion????
Initially, the controversy here concerns seizure & 30 day vehicle impounds under CVC § 14602.6. What is different about § 14602.6 is that it not only authorizes the vehicle seizure & removal from the street (something the police are already authorized to do under other CVC provisions & under the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment); § 14602.6 also imposes a mandatory 30 day vehicle impound that precludes the car’s owner from retrieving the car for 30 days except under certain circumstances. The critics of the LAPD enforcement policy do not dispute the police power to seize & remove cars from the street because the driver is not properly licensed (i.e., no license; expired license) or is unfit to drive (e.g., drunk); their chief complaint is the 30 day mandatory impound. That 30 day impound is summary punishment of the car’s owner (who is often not the driver) without informing the owner why he/she is being punished. The 30 day impound also frequently results in the loss of the car because the owner cannot afford the impound & storage fees that accrue after 30 days.
One major problem with the current LAPD policy on § 14602.6 vehicle seizures & impounds (& that of many other jurisdictions) is that the department’s enforcement policy is unlawful under state law. LAPD will seize & impound under CVC § 14602.6 on the sole basis that the driver does not have a current California license even though the driver has a license, whether current or expired, from a foreign jurisdiction (either another state or country).
By its terms (& excluding those drivers whose licenses are suspended or revoked) § 14602.6 applies only to drivers who have never “been issued a driver’s license.” That is, if you have been issued “a driver’s license,” then the car is NOT subject to a § 14602.6 seizure & 30 day impound (though it may be subject to seizure & removal — but not a 30 day impound — under another provision). Since CVC § 310 defines “driver’s license” as used in the Vehicle Code to include licenses issued by foreign jurisdictions, if the driver of the car has a license issued by the Republic of Mexico, then the car cannot be seized & impounded under CVC § 14602.6 (& again, assuming none of the alternative criteria for a § 14602.6 seizure/impound are present).
There are other serious problems as well, in particular the summary punishment of a 30 day impound, a punishment that is also imposed without constitutional due process (notice & opportunity to be heard, hearing before an unbiased tribunal, etc.) That, however, goes more toward the constitutionality of § 14602.6 itself. If you believe strongly in property rights & limits on the government’s power to seize property (as I do), this aspect of § 14602.6 should be deeply troubling. However, it seems to me that defenders of the current LAPD policy are uninterested in the constitutional problems because they view the policy as chiefly affecting & summarily punishing illegal immigrants & hence, the defenders don’t care about the constitutional problems.
What Chief Beck should do is at least comply with the terms of the statute. That is, officers should not seize & impound under § 14602.6 where the driver has a license from any jurisdiction & the alternative criteria for a § 14602.6 seizure & impound are not present. Not only would this be in compliance with the terms of § 14602.6, it would also defuse much if not most of the critics’ concerns to the current enforcement policy — car owners losing their cars because they cannot afford to pay the storage & lien charges that accrue on a 30 day impound. It costs a lot less to get your car back after 1 day in storage than after 30 days.
Thanks for the excellent information. You mention that the driver is often not the vehicle owner. That raises the question as to what responsibility a person has when lending a car to someone. After all, bartenders are liable when they serve visibly drunk customers; shouldn’t car owners be liable if they loan their car to unlicensed drivers?
CVC § 14604 makes it unlawful for a vehicle owner to “knowingly allow” another to drive the owner’s car w/o making a reasonable effort to determine if its lawful for the driver to drive. However, § 14604 does NOT include a 30 day impound as among the authorized punishment for violating § 14604. Moreover, the California courts have construed § 14602.6 as NOT incorporating § 14604 (Smith v. Santa Rosa Police Dept.).
In other words, if you want to punish the car’s owner for letting an unlicensed driver drive the owner’s car, then charge the owner with violating § 14604 & go from there.
Thanks for the clarification. So, we have inconsistent laws being inconsistently enforced. Doesn’t get any better than that.
What about the person who is here illegally? Do we argue the fairness of impounding his car for 30 days, when we wouldn’t even be having this argument if the person hadn’t entered the U.S illegally? How do we get around that technicality? Of course the sanctuary cities, immigration rights orgs. and their lawyers already have, they just act as if the laws never were.
One tiny itty bitty problem with DWCs quote of CVC 310 defining “driver license”. He omitted the qualifying word “valid”. The license must be valid to have effect. If a tourist from Mexico were involved somehow in a traffic stop, her/his current Mexican license plus a temporary insurance rider with US coverage would “validate” the license, proving DWCs point. However, a non-tourist possessing a US insurance policy more than 10 days old, or having no insurance at all, would invalidate the Mexican – or Guatemalan – license, making it worthless in establishing standing under CVC 14602.6. Need to read the whole thing, not just the bits and pieces one likes.
Sorry Bill Gannon, for purposes of precluding a 30 day impound under § 14602.6, the foreign license does not have to be valid at the time of the stop to have effect. If a driver has been issued a license by a foreign jurisdiction (be it another state or country) at a minimum that means the driver, at one point in the past, held a valid driver’s license. So if the driver is stopped in California, the driver is NOT someone who has never “been issued a driver’s license”; instead, he is someone who has been issued a valid license (regardless of whether the license is valid as of the time of the stop). Thus, there cannot be a 30 day impound under § 14602.6 on the basis that the driver has never “been issued a driver’s license.”
Now the police might still have the right to seize & store the car for another reason, e.g., the driver is drunk; the driver’s license has expired. But that is a simple seizure & removal from the street; the car’s owner can get the car back right away b/c it is not a § 14602.6 30 day impound.
One further point. “Residency” is not established by living in California a certain number of days, e.g., 10 days or more. Were that the case, then a lot of “snowbirds” (retirees whose homes are in cold weather locales but who live in sunny So. Cal. in the winter months) could be in a lot of trouble — hanging onto their Minnesota driver licenses year-round. Residency is shown by where one intends to make his/her permanent place of abode. So one can live in California for months or even years and not have California as his/her “residency.” I mention this because the police, upon seeing a foreign license, will ask the driver how long he’s been in state. If the driver says more than 10 days, the cop responds with “ah ha, you’re a California resident but you have a foreign license but not a California license; thus, you’re an unlicensed driver in violation of VC § 12500.” The cop’s reasoning here is b.s. for reasons stated, but the cop gets away with it b/c the victims are generally poor (i.e., not your typical retiree in his/her motorhome) & often illegal aliens. Which brings up another point. If you’re an illegal alien, by definition you cannot lawfully be a “resident” of California. Yet another reason why the cop’s line of thinking re residency fails.
But to repeat an earlier point. If the police stop a driver who does not have valid driver’s license (be it from California or foreign), then the driver is in violation of VC § 12500 & the car may be subject to lawful seizure & storage per the community caretaking doctrine. Also, if this same driver has never been issued a driver’s license (whether from California or foreign) then per the terms of § 14602.6, the car becomes subject to a 30 day mandatory impound (in addition to seizure & removal from the street). In that instance, the 30 day impound would be in accordance with § 14602.6. However, there would be other, constitutional problems with the 30 day impound arising from constitutional defects in § 14602.6.
It’s a fruitless battle going on here. Dunphy is perfectly logical and correct in his commentary and analysis. Villaraigosa was elected by a constituency that demands an impound policy that favor illegals, among other things. All one has to do is drive in large swaths of Los Angeles and greater Los Angeles county and see a complete balkanization of these areas. It would be difficult to distinguish third world parts of Mexico and these areas. Zero assimilation, astronomical crime. Most L.A. county residents will know many Mexican nationals that have been living here for 20 years and STILL don’t speak English. At this point, it’s a lost cause in attempting to turn the tide. Either accept it or move is my recommendation. The latter is what my wife and I intend to do in a couple of years. California is a pretty place with wonderful climate but all one has to do is visit other states and you’ll notice that there are many other pretty places with decent climates that won’t be slowly imploding like California. Good luck all!
Good luck to you and your wife, Gurgle. California will lose a rational mind but will not notice. Consider Wyoming where we make more sense than the largest nanny state ever seen in America.
As an old shiboleth says: only lawyers and housepainters can turn black into white and white into black.
“You mention that the driver is often not the vehicle owner.” In Portland, Oregon, a “John’s Law” confiscated vehicles used while soliciting prostitutes. Funny how the law and/or enforcement disappeared after large hauling companies started losing 18 wheelers in a sting.
It is happening in places like Greeley, CO and other areas of the state.
What you have to realize is that such things do not happen without significant support from a wide variety of people and groups.
Understand that the left likes it as a sort of brotherhood week. Further they like recruiting from these groups because the groups are activists, progressive in the Marxian sense, and can serve as the shock troops of the cause. Being de facto privileged they are willing to fight to preserve those rights.
Other groups want these practices to continue to provide a wider provocation which would result in doing damage to the left, and civil liberties by corrupting our culture of law and rights. Not only lefties want to see such silly things die.
Lastly, we have the chapel-rats, again progressive who suffer some form of pathological altruism.
When it blows up, we will have quite a party.
What I am waiting for is what other state and federal laws will Beck and other worthies decide they don’t like and won’t enforce?
And what will happen if the next LAPD boss is a closet KKK member? The precedent to find another group to favor and one to punish is right there and waiting.
When will those who claim not to be racist stop finding race to be a reason to do something?
Chief Beck cares more about the illegal aliens than he does about the day to day operations of the LAPD and the well being of it’s Officers. He spends more time trying to conn the LEGAL citizens, than he does actually taking command of this police department. And that’s why most of we Police Officers, hate working for him now. This department is a complete joke to work for right now. I’m embarrassed to work for Beck and his management hacks! We need a consent decree for the management of the LAPD …..ASAP. Because this ship is sinking , and sinking fast! Hey Chief, you finally got your step daughter promoted, in Newton….(um YEAH, EGREGIOUS NEPOTISM.). But I guess, merrit based promoting is frowned upon in the Beck household. Seems to be the status quo for this Chief and his cronies. Demographic imperatives, friends and family get the perks and promotions, and the rest of us just get made to suck on it and move on. Thanks for nothing Chief. But at least the illegal gang members and landscapers wont get thier vehicles towed, huh?
The LAPD is of thier careers, only to escape real police work and get promoted to an even higher rank and sherk thier duties there. To Protect and to Serve, is a clearly a meaningless punchline to them. And now we and the people of Los Angeles are stuck with a Chief, who’s legacy will be laced with deplorable failures, political pandering. And the department is stacked with self-serving hacks, waiting in line to take his place when he physically checks out.
Hey Chief Beck….go ahead, hurry up and retire, so we can hurry up and get to the next unqualified “Manager/Hack” that’s going to further sink this department. I’m totally disgusted with this place! As should any officer worth thier salt who doesn’t have thier head deep inside the rear-end of a department manager or aclu lawyer. I feel bad for the good people of Los Angeles. I’ll keep helping out the good folks, but certianly not with the same vigor I once had. Again, I’m truly disgusted the majority of this Chiefs Alice in Wonderland actions, and in-actions for that matter.
It appears that some of my post didn’t come through. The second paragraphs beginning was reffering the LAPD management, not the working stiffs on the front lines.
Dont worry Ed, the rank and file seem to do just fine…
I read somehere here on PJM 70% of LAPD (or was it CHIPS) retire with full disabilities…
Where is OSHA? Where are the news stories? How can a ‘monoply industry” operate in such a way that an overwhelming majority of its workforce is horribly injured on a regular basis, without being shut down?
Oh, thats right…wink wink….
Its only Tax Money, everyone does it, right?
Anyone who has been involved in an accident with illegals in L.A., within the past decade, knows they are favored over citizens. I was involved in an accident with a van full of probable illegals. The driver had a green card, but no drivers license. The owner of the vehicle was not present, and while the vehicle contained an insurance policy, it turned out to be cancelled. Someone with no other ID produced a temporary drivers license which was accepted by the officer on the scene – even though this person was not driving. The driver was about 5 ft, and his head was barely visible in the window of the van, as he (apparently) shot out of a driveway, across three lanes of traffic to appear in front of myself, broadside in a freeway entrance lane. Subsequently, all attempts by my insurance to contact any of these people resulted in “just moved, location unknown” or “gone back to El Salvador”. I have a suggestion: give a drivers license to illegals (with non-citizen prominently displayed) IF THEY CAN PROVIDE A DRIVERS LICENSE FROM THEIR HOME COUNTRY. American children learn to drive culturally. I grew up watching my father, and climbed behind the wheel as if I were born to it. Someone who has spent their life on foot, bus, or burro, does not have that background. I do not want to share the road with them while they learn. Of course, I realize illegal is illegal, but politicians in California lead Washington in refusing to uphold the law, so let’s make the best of a rotten deal.
Andre,
The cops dont care, they are revenue jockies.
To them, since YOU have insurance, youre covered, so shut up.
These guys?
We cant make any hay from them…Tickets, fines?
We’ll never see them again…
Besides, the Paperworks a bitch…
So off they go…
While the Revenue Boys look for soccer moms without seatbelts.
Quick, guaranteed cash sale.
I have always found Mexicans to be fine drivers when they are sober.
Asian females stuggle behind the wheel.
If the LAPD do not extend the same privilege to citizens then we have constitutional problem, don’t we? If the state law requires impoundment then we have a willful violation of state law on the part of the LAPD.
I propose that we pay Mexico a couple of bucks to take California back, with the only condition being that they have to take everyone in the state with them.
The “fairness” mantra emanating from the White House and it’s toadies is becoming sickening. It is nothing more then a blatant attempt to incite class/race warfare for the benefit of the Democratic Party. The non-producing portion of our population has expanded at an astounding rate (Republicans are guilty here as well as Dems) but the citizens who are still net payers into the system will soon be overwhelmed if we can not institute change. The sad part is that the welfare state will soon kill the goose that laid the handout egg and we will all be in the same basket.
Beck, Baca, and the LaRaza mayor of LA are guilty of gross and willful dereliction of duty, aiding and abetting, violating their oath of office and our Constitution. There is a fine line separating dereliction of duty from treason and this trilogy of terror has crossed that line.
Check their bank balances (now and in the future) so as to discover just what price is paid for an American to sell out his country. These three make LaRaza, Felipe Calderon, Napolitano, Morton, and Perez very proud.
I lived on the Mexican border of Texas for 10 years. At one point, I crossed the border with my family to go to lunch. I was in a horrible accident, that was my fault. I turned across a lane of traffic, and T boned a truck.
The cops showed up, and I was promptly arrested. I was a 22 year old white girl, and I was thrown into Mexican prison. I am also a diabetic, and I would not have survived there. The rule in Mexico is that people who cause traffic accidents are criminals, and are thrown in jail until all parties damages are paid. My State Farm insurance covered me driving in Mexico. By the time the Mexicans were done with my insurance, they had tried to claim $300,000 in damages (no joke). And they kept my car until they were done being paid (about three months)
My suggestion? Do as the Mexicans do in their own effing country. Throw the uninsured who cause accidents, or the unlicensed, in jail until their families pay up. It’s only fair. Do unto others…..
Won’t be long before regular citizens are posing as illegal aliens in order to secure more ‘rights’.
Why is it that the white house favorites have such a B-I-G advantage over the American People. Could it be that the White House is BIASED ???
OMG — obama MUST BE GONE !!!!
enjoy the police state , wow the state stealing people’s cars for minor infractions and all the talkbackers think it’s ok…
IM
Sydney, oz
The second comment says it all – and a Billie type thing – what ever a Billie is – thinks it is definitely Dunphy’s fault!
What is it people ?
Is it the weather – are you just working at breeding stupid – or did all of the travelers going West – that had a modicum of common sense – bale out of the Conestoga wagons before they landed in California?
Something sure as hell happened that truly affected your state and its ability to take care of its own!
You let every Tom – Dick and Jose into you state – with no concept of a legal immigration program – then you are faced with a quagmire of confusion – legal doubletalk and exorbitant expenses.
Hey I have a huge ‘NOT ME’ – I do not want to end up paying for your inabilities !
Please sign me up as a bigot – ‘suffering fools really sucks’!
I was stationed in San Diego back in the late 60s/ early 70s and spent quite a bit of time in Tijuana. We were warned not to drive in Mexico and to park in San Ysidro and walk across the border. That worked fine until my car was broken into then I just started driving on across. The main problem then was the government in Mexico charged so much for a drivers Lic. that no one could afford one. I would imagine it is just as bad or worse there now. So I doubt many of the Mexicans here now have them. If they get in an accident or a traffic stop they just write off that car and go take up a collection to buy another one.
Hi!
We have posted some good stuff and credited PJ with links etc., but FB have now blocked us.
Can you please pass on our latest posts – if you like them – and thus help an expat conservative blog that is fighting on the same side as yourselves? Thanks
Ross
http://rossrightangle.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/facebook-geekstapo-stomp-rra-but-no-surreneder/
So what happens when the cops find drugs in the cars?
When laws are not equally enforced then the laws don’t mean anything and we are going on a road towards anarchy, where the loudest voices will rule the day.
Scary, very scary, that those entrusted to follow the law and enforce it are now trying to take the law into their own hands.
Personally once a police officer says he doesn’t want to enforce the law, it is time to remove that person from his position of authority