A 1983 action is valid and is not required to be filed in federal court. State court will do. As to whether it would get heard, such right to hearing requests over simple parking violations has reached the US Supreme Court. As to my own cases, the 1983 action survived demurs and even summary judgment. They are real and not idle threats.
You do however make a good point with the request coming from the owner and in whose rights are being violated. You are speculating as to what was said in requesting a hearing or asking for an officer. Simply making a request and being directed to a particular lieutenant who is not present is not sufficient to state that a request was not made. This is not an uncommon occurrence in such requests, I have seen this myself. Furthermore, there is nothing that would not allow the owner to request such hearing through the driver - it is speculation as to whether they have talked and one is acting for the other or not. It is also true that the owner would likely be the one to pursue such claims in court.
The limits of liability however may not end with impound fees. The loss of the vehicle due to improper procedures can open the door for damages related to the inability to use the vehicle. This opens claims of trespass as well.
Vehicle Impounded for Driving on Expired License
Printable View
-
01-04-2010, 03:18 PMLawManRe: Vehicle Impounded for Driving on Expired License
-
01-23-2010, 11:45 AMchancesinlifeRe: Vehicle Impounded for Driving on Expired License
I don't know if u can help me but my mom was pulled over last night for having a suspended license and they impounded her vehicle. My mother had just gone to the dol to ask about her license getting renewed since she had her license stolen with her purse. The people told her there to take a form to the doctor and have him document that she didn't have narcolepsy and everything would be fine.
My mother had the idea that she was ok to still drive if she needed to until she could get the doc to fill out the letter and showed the officer but the officer didn't even want to look at the form and just said u commited a crime and we r impounding your vehicle, is that lawful? Also, couldn't she still ask if someone in her family could come get her and take the vehicle home? I'm just so confused and don't know how to help her, thanks for any info from washington state. -
01-23-2010, 11:53 AMThat GuyRe: Vehicle Impounded for Driving on Expired LicenseChance,Quote:
Quoting chancesinlife
Different circumstances, different State, different laws.... etc. You need to start your own thread. Thanks -
01-23-2010, 11:57 AMcdwjavaRe: Vehicle Impounded for Driving on Expired LicensePlease start your own thread, and remember to include the name o your state. Different states have different laws in these areas.Quote:
Quoting chancesinlife
-
05-19-2010, 07:01 PMMarie814Re: Vehicle Impounded for Driving on Expired License
I know I'm pretty late on this, but I had to reply....
They should not have kept your friend's car, and if it was impounded by an LA County Sheriff, I would love to speak with you. The same thing happened to me. My car is in my parents' name. I told them a friend was borrowing it to take another friend home. They knew this friend and had no reason to believe he was unlicensed. I had been drinking, so I didn't want to drive. I actually specifically asked him if his license was valid and he said yes. Well, he lied. My car was impounded and put on a 30-day hold.
The 2002 case of Smith v. Santa Rosa Police Dept. 97 Cal.App. 4th 546 interprets 14602. It is a published opinion of the First District Court of Appeals, binding on all lower California courts, and all those enforcing the law. The suit was brought by a man whose car was impounded, even though he was unaware that his driver grandson, whom he lent it to, was unlicensed. He thought he was, but he never asked as to the fact of it. He did not ask to see his grandson's license. He told the police this during his "storage hearing." They told him this was not enough of a "mitigating circumstance" to warrant release. Nevertheless, the court ruled the truck be released to the grandfather and registered owner, and the police department compensate him for the time he was deprived of the vehicle. The court ruled that, in the case of borrowed vehicles, if the registered owner genuinely believed the unlicensed driver had a valid license, this is a "mitigating circumstance" and the car is to be released to that owner. He does not have to show that he conducted some investigation as to the validity of the person's license (how does one do that, anyway?). The law was simply not meant to punish a licensed driver who did not knowingly hand their keys to an unlicensed one.
Eight years after Smith, almost no police departments follow it, and almost no one wrongfully deprived challenge it. My father and I were told, "Trust us. We know the law better than you do." I was told that because I didn't find out for sure if my friend had a driver's license, it was my fault and, thus, justifiable to keep my car. The widespread disregard of Smith by police enforcing 14602 was brought to the attention of the Court in 2007. The case, Samples v. Brown 146 Cal.App. 4th 787, was a challenge to the constitutionality of the statute. Although the Court ruled it was constitutional, it was very disapproving of the evidence presented showing no compliance with its Smith ruling:
"Urging us to find a lack of adequate guidance for enforcement of this statute, Samples underscores evidence in the record suggesting that at least some agencies have no written policies governing the mitigating circumstances inquiry and instead employ their own subjective criteria to determine what constitutes a mitigating circumstance. Equally troubling is evidence suggesting that many agencies do not consider the vehicle owner's lack of actual knowledge regarding the driver's licensing status to be a mitigating circumstance under section 14602.6(b) notwithstanding this court's decision in Smith, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th 546.
We are concerned by Samples's anecdotal evidence and we certainly do not condone [*31] the conduct of agencies who ignore our holding in Smith or in some other way circumvent the safeguards designed to ensure proper enforcement of section 14602.6.... Individuals who believe this statute has been improperly or illegally applied to them may seek redress in the courts."
Section 14602 has been interpreted by the Courts as giving police the authority to impound vehicles driven by unlicensed driver, but the 4th Amendment places restrictions on when that authority may be exercised. Many cases spell out those circumstances under which an officer in California may seize a vehicle and place it on a 30-day hold. It has been ruled that a mandatory impoundment of any unlicensed driver's vehicle violates the 4th amendment as an unreasonable seizure. Still, sheriff's departments continue putting forth policies like, "No license, no vehicle.. no exceptions" on their websites. Basically, a police officer's functions are that of "community caretaking." In the case of an unlicensed driver, the officer's job is to stop the continuance of the unlicensed driver. If the parked vehicle is not a "nuisance" to traffic or an individual's property, if a passenger has a valid license and permission to drive the vehicle, or if the vehicle is not vulnerable to immediate vandalism or theft, the officer's job is done. No further action is required of him. However, if none of these circumstances are present, the officer's community caretaking function requires that he get the vehicle out of harm's way. It is at this point that section 14602 places the option of tow and impoundment at his disposal.
I am a 3L in law school, and it amazes me how little police departments know about this statute, despite how harsh the consequences are. The sheriff I dealt with didn't even know what a "storage hearing" was when I requested one... and this law has been in effect for 15 years! My father is filing suit to recover the costs. I know so many who have had the same happen to them that I wonder if a class action is possible, as this was with the LA County Sheriff. The department was so adamant that they have always done this and they were sure this was the law. I imagine there are many out there who were greatly burdened by this practice.