Judge: LAPD Impound Policy Violates State Constitution
August 12, 2013
A controversial LAPD impound policy allowing unlicensed drivers to retrieve their vehicles earlier than 30 days is illegal, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled Monday.
Judge Terry Green is still deciding whether to set aside his ruling until an appeals court hears the case that has pitted the LAPD patrol union against the American Civil Liberties Union.
The Los Angeles Police Protective League sued the LAPD and city in April 2012 to halt implementation of Special Order 7, which was proposed by Chief Charlie Beck and approved by the Los Angeles Police Commission. In May, the state's attorney general released a report endorsing the order.
Special Order 7 authorizes a one-day impound that allows unlicensed drivers who have auto insurance, valid identification, and no previous citations for unlicensed driving to retrieve their vehicles before the state-mandated 30-day holding period, reports the Los Angeles Times.
The order would allow some illegal immigrants to recover their vehicles and could put the agency at risk if the released vehicles cause traffic fatalities later, the union has said.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2
Ima Leprechaun @ 8/13/2013 10:54 PM
As I read I kept thinking I must be missing something and then I got to the last paragraph and hit the buzz words "illegal immigrants". In most places where the US Constitution is still in effect the registered owner of a car can collect their vehicle after paying for the impound and towing fees (and fines if there are parking violations) and if not legally able to drive, have their car towed out of impound by a private towing company so they don't rack up excessive impound fees which would be a 4th amendment violation regarding improper seizure of property. Any owner could allow any legally licensed family member to later drive the vehicle which is not against the law anywhere in the USA. LAPD Administrative Policy that allows an unlicensed or illegal driver to drive would be a huge problem as well since no Police Agency has the power to circumvent written legal code to allow anyone to intentionally break the law. Any California State mandate concerning a mandatory impound for 30 days is also a 4th and 14th amendment violation so it appears all sides are wrong. This one could end up costing somebody (tax payers) some big bucks!
Bluevixen63 @ 8/14/2013 9:42 PM
@Ima Leprechaun please explain to me how preventing an unlicensed driver from having access to a vehicle a violation of the 4th and 14th amendment? I mean should the rest of us law-abiding citizens, who learned how to drive, learned the rules of the road, obtained our driving privileges and honored the law and therefore were able to KEEP our driving privileges, because it is a privilege, subject ourselves and our loved ones to injury or worse death because these idiots choose to drive without license and crash into us? You may argue, we don't know if they are going to have an accident or not, you're right but should we wait until we are crying over a grave before we do something to ensure it?
Join the Discussion
Other Recent News
The U.S. Justice Department announced late Wednesday that it will not file criminal...
Dep. John Mennen of the Greenlee County Sheriff's Office and Clifton Police Sgt. Jason...
Maha Aldhalimi of Wayne County said that a police officer arrested her on Sept. 15, 2004,...
Stockton police say that one of its dogs died Tuesday when the air conditioner on the...
Inkster, Mich., police officer Phillip (Chuck) Randazzo, 44, is suing his employer after...