Results 1 to 6 of 6

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    44

    Default California State Assembly Committing Class-Warfare Against Poor Drivers

    Background of crime:
    Under Ca vehicle code: 14602.6, the police may impound the car, for 30 days, of a driver having a suspended license (the "driver"). This stemmed from AB 1133 written and passed in 1995. The 30-day impound is valid for suspended licenses of DUI's or speeding.
    Nature of crime:
    After the 30 days have elapsed, the driver may reclaim his vehicle after paying the fee for storage, which is around $1,000 (Total Impound Fee, or "TIF").
    This is, of course, unconstitutional and illegal, because it all but guarantees that a violator of the law with a high earning capacity can retrieve his car from the impound lot after the 30-day impound and not count it a total loss. Someone with a car costing less than the TIF will never get to reclaim his automobile. This is class privilege because the person with the wealth reclaims his vehicle after the 30 days, while the person without the wealth does not reclaim his vehicle after the 30 days.

    I'll cite an example:

    Person A earns $1 million per month and owns a Bugatti Veyron--a $1 million car. Person B earns $1,000 per month and owns a used Civic--a $1,000 car.
    Both drive their vehicles on a suspended license from a previous speeding conviction.

    At the same time, both are arrested ("pulled over") for some reason. Both have their vehicles impounded, and for the mandatory 30 days.
    After the 30 days, the owner of the Veyron reclaims his vehicle after paying the TIF of $1,000. The owner of the Civic does not retrieve his car, because the TIF is greater than the car's fair-market value.

    Thus we have two people, punished in the same manner, but the wealthier of the two ends up with his car in the end, while the poorer of the two does not.

    The 30-day impound can't be used as a deterrence measure, because studies show a driver is going to either drive his car on a suspended license or he is not; specific days of elapsure have no effect on this decision-making process.

    Thus, the only reason for the 30-day rule to be placed in effect must have been to assure wealthy people can retrieve their cars after they have been impounded by the police. There is no other reason, whether obvious or not, for this 30-day impound requirement to be placed in effect.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    44

    Default Re: Ca. State Assembly Committing Class-Warfare Against Poor Drivers

    The two alleged criminals in this case would be the drafters of SB 1133: Quentin Kopp and Richard Katz.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeastern Michigan
    Posts
    1,226

    Default Re: Ca. State Assembly Committing Class-Warfare Against Poor Drivers

    Unconstitutional, in what way? In a situation as you've described, wealth just about guarantees you the ability to pay the fines whereas your income may not afford you the same. There is no discrimination; same crime, same consequences!

    If you don't get popped for DUI or driving while suspended, then you, as a middle-class citizen, have nothing to worry about. If you do, then you face the same consequence as the upper class. Again, there is no difference except the $1m car owner is in a better financial position to pay the fines where as you may suffer as a result. The law is the law and ignorance of such is no excuse.

    IMHO: You have failed to prove your point.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    44

    Default Re: Ca. State Assembly Committing Class-Warfare Against Poor Drivers

    Quote Quoting M'sta Mikey
    View Post
    Unconstitutional, in what way? In a situation as you've described, wealth just about guarantees you the ability to pay the fines whereas your income may not afford you the same. There is no discrimination; same crime, same consequences!

    If you don't get popped for DUI or driving while suspended, then you, as a middle-class citizen, have nothing to worry about. If you do, then you face the same consequence as the upper class. Again, there is no difference except the $1m car owner is in a better financial position to pay the fines where as you may suffer as a result. The law is the law and ignorance of such is no excuse.

    IMHO: You have failed to prove your point.
    My problem was in the rationale with the 30-day hold. Why 30 days? Why not forfeiture or no impound at all? Why that 30 days specifically? I see it as more than mere coincidence that the length of the hold (30 days) coincides with the resale values of most used cars driven by poorer people.

    Also, we may reverse the roles. Assume the poor person has the $1M car and the wealthy person has the $1,000 car. Under this (highly unlikely) scenario, the owner of the $1,000 car still loses out. In either instance, the person with the $1,000 car loses and the $1M car wins. Thus, we have to conclude that the rationale for the 30-day hold is to ensure that anyone with the expensive car may retrieve it, while the person with the not-so-expensive car cannot.
    Since the rationale for the 30-day hold is to discriminate between the kinds of cars that are held (based on resale value) and not because the driver was driving on a suspended license, we may conclude that the 30-day hold is illegal.
    And since expensive cars are usually driven by wealthy people, the natural conclusion we can extrapolate from the hitherto is that the 30-day hold serves the wealthy.

    I just don't see how you can argue around this, M'sta Mikey.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    44

    Default Re: Ca. State Assembly Committing Class-Warfare Against Poor Drivers

    If anyone desires to reply to any of this, all I ask is that you think carefully before doing so. Posts such as, "Well the dumb poor *&$#*% should be paying money to get his license not spending it on crack cocaine, stupid bum" will not be helpful.
    Well thought-out posting, please.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    44

    Default Re: Ca. State Assembly Committing Class-Warfare Against Poor Drivers

    Don't any state legislators ever visit this forum who can explain this miscarriage of justice?

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. California Assembly Bill 91
    By Halfajap in forum Driver's Licenses
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-25-2010, 06:02 PM
  2. Speeding Tickets: Speeding Tickets for Out of State CDL Drivers
    By scottie in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-13-2009, 12:31 PM
  3. Collection and Enforcement: Fighting California DCSS in Loophole Enforcement of All California Limo Drivers
    By IWillSurvive in forum Child Custody, Support and Visitation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-21-2009, 10:02 AM
  4. Mold and Poor Construction Issues with Condo in California
    By Goddess in forum Real Estate Ownership and Title
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-17-2009, 06:35 AM
  5. Suspension and Revocation: Out-of-State Drivers License Suspension
    By Sammy6 in forum Driver's Licenses
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-09-2007, 12:08 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources