Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
California is in a sad state. Laws are made for illegal immigration. The schools are broke at the same time the pass a law for illegals to receive state funding.
Under the new law written by Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, if a sober driver is found not to have a valid license while stopped at a checkpoint, law enforcement officers must release the vehicle to a qualified driver representing the registered owner. If a qualified driver is unavailable, the vehicle should be released later to one at the impound yard, AB 353 says.
Cedillo’s office said the impetus for the bill was the belief by many that some police departments were targeting illegal immigrants with the checkpoints rather than drunken drivers.
I'm not a particularly vindictive human being but I sincerely hope one of those unlicensed and uninsured drivers gets into a car accident with Cedillo and costs him lots of money. Illegals should not be driving. If caught driving they should be deported.
It's sheer unsympathetic arrogance to argue otherwise.
Read this thread I started and you will see why that Liberal Moron Jerry Brown will be recalled for not only giving Illegals the Dream Act in California while the State is broke but also for his other stupid ideas. Tim Donnelly
California will start a recall soon against this fool. Rep. Donnelly has already stated that he will fight implementation of the Calif. Dream Act. This new thing about not impounding cars from unlicensed drivers is more Hispandering by Jerry Brown.
Americans and LEGAL immigrants in Calif. have to have auto insurance, driver's licenses and a currently registered vehicle which costs most of us quite a bit, Illegals are "special" in Gov. Brown's world and don't have to follow the laws.
This "tool" got routinely abused by California officers, especially the notorious "30 day impound" section. It was a big money-maker for cities, a sort of hidden tax on the impoverished- not just "illegals", either, but anyone caught driving without a license.
DOJ investigations revealed that the corrupt City of Bell partly financed it's shananigans through this method. Also, it appears some "illegal immigrant"- averse cities (the article mentions Escondido) may have used the impounds as a pretext to turn the heat up under their immigrant communities.
The vast majority who had their car towed couldn't afford 30 days of lot fees, so they lost their vehicles. Court decisions started to pile finding for the owners, saying such impounds are a seizure under the 4th Amendment without due process (By the time a case went to court, if it ever did, the car was history).
About two years ago, the state's DA's offices and legal affairs offices began issuing advisals, suggesting police departments statewide modify their impound policies, to reflect current case law and avoid civil liability. Most, including mine, did so.
This new law at the state level is just the government formalizing policies and practices that have already been in place for most departments for quite a while now.
I would think most on the Right would salute this law's curtailing the power of the State. But I guess you're a little conflicted on this one.
If you drive without a license or insurance (and one usually goes with the other) you damned well deserve everything that happens to you up to and including having your car seized so you don't do something that stupid. If municipalities are hard up for cash in California maybe that's because they have to pay for all those social services for illegals.
Illegals aren't immigrants. They are criminal aliens. If caught in yet another violation of our laws they should be fined, jailed and deported. Anything we can do to make their lives harder should be done.
If you drive without a license or insurance (and one usually goes with the other) you damned well deserve everything that happens to you up to and including having your car seized so you don't do something that stupid. If municipalities are hard up for cash in California maybe that's because they have to pay for all those social services for illegals.
Illegals aren't immigrants. They are criminal aliens. If caught in yet another violation of our laws they should be fined, jailed and deported. Anything we can do to make their lives harder should be done.
They weren't "hard up" for cash in Bell. The mayor was making $900,000 a year, in one of the poorest little cities in the state. The whole city government was a bunch of crooks. The only cash they were "hard up" for was any that might have gone to improving the lives of their citizens.
As a cop in SoCal for thirty years, I never considered it my job to act as an avenging angel. It wasn't my job to decide what people "deserved" by way of punsihment, or to "make their lives harder". I just enforced the laws, as professionally as I could.
I saw the logic in the court decisions regarding the constitutional ramifications of vehicle impounds. When the DA and our lawyers asked us to modify our policy, we did so. We didn't stop impounding cars- we just exercised more discretion and common sense.
If the people of California are not happy with this development, they are welcome to try to change the law. But if, as has happened several times in the past, we pass a law that violates the constitution, it will be struck down.
They weren't "hard up" for cash in Bell. The mayor was making $900,000 a year, in one of the poorest little cities in the state. The whole city government was a bunch of crooks. The only cash they were "hard up" for was any that might have gone to improving the lives of their citizens.
As a cop in SoCal for thirty years, I never considered it my job to act as an avenging angel. It wasn't my job to decide what people "deserved" by way of punsihment, or to "make their lives harder". I just enforced the laws, as professionally as I could.
I saw the logic in the court decisions regarding the constitutional ramifications of vehicle impounds. When the DA and our lawyers asked us to modify our policy, we did so. We didn't stop impounding cars- we just exercised more discretion and common sense.
If the people of California are not happy with this development, they are welcome to try to change the law. But if, as has happened several times in the past, we pass a law that violates the constitution, it will be struck down.
If you are really a cop I am truly sorry that you apparently have no problem with criminals. Common sense would indicate that illegals who break our immigration laws and then break the laws even further by driving without licensure or insurance should be punished as much as possible. We should certainly do everything we can to prevent them from driving, let alone driving without licensure or insurance.
But then again common sense hasn't been common in California for a long time so I am not surprised at your views. If you really want to improve the lives of American citizens making it easier for illegal aliens to drive, let alone making it easier for them drive without demonstrating a grasp of road fundamentals or carry insurance in case of an accident is not the way to go about it.
This "tool" got routinely abused by California officers, especially the notorious "30 day impound" section. It was a big money-maker for cities, a sort of hidden tax on the impoverished- not just "illegals", either, but anyone caught driving without a license.
DOJ investigations revealed that the corrupt City of Bell partly financed it's shananigans through this method. Also, it appears some "illegal immigrant"- averse cities (the article mentions Escondido) may have used the impounds as a pretext to turn the heat up under their immigrant communities.
The vast majority who had their car towed couldn't afford 30 days of lot fees, so they lost their vehicles. Court decisions started to pile finding for the owners, saying such impounds are a seizure under the 4th Amendment without due process (By the time a case went to court, if it ever did, the car was history).
About two years ago, the state's DA's offices and legal affairs offices began issuing advisals, suggesting police departments statewide modify their impound policies, to reflect current case law and avoid civil liability. Most, including mine, did so.
This new law at the state level is just the government formalizing policies and practices that have already been in place for most departments for quite a while now.
I would think most on the Right would salute this law's curtailing the power of the State. But I guess you're a little conflicted on this one.
Do they not have access to bicycles, buses or taxis in that area?
They weren't "hard up" for cash in Bell. The mayor was making $900,000 a year, in one of the poorest little cities in the state. The whole city government was a bunch of crooks. The only cash they were "hard up" for was any that might have gone to improving the lives of their citizens.
As a cop in SoCal for thirty years, I never considered it my job to act as an avenging angel. It wasn't my job to decide what people "deserved" by way of punsihment, or to "make their lives harder". I just enforced the laws, as professionally as I could.
I saw the logic in the court decisions regarding the constitutional ramifications of vehicle impounds. When the DA and our lawyers asked us to modify our policy, we did so. We didn't stop impounding cars- we just exercised more discretion and common sense.
If the people of California are not happy with this development, they are welcome to try to change the law. But if, as has happened several times in the past, we pass a law that violates the constitution, it will be struck down.
Where in the U.S. Constitution does it grant the “right” to foreigners to live in this country illegally, and operate a motor vehicle, let alone, without a license or insurance? Other states have impound laws without violating the Constitution. California chooses not to, simply to accommodate massive numbers of illegal alien drivers.
Quote:
A September 2008 NHTSA study found that 11 states have laws permitting impoundment of vehicles whose drivers committed impaired driving offenses, and that eight states (Alabama, Arizona, California, Iowa, Maryland, Nebraska, Oregon, and Virginia) authorize the impoundment of vehicles whose operators are driving while under suspension, regardless of the reason for the suspension. Connecticut law authorizes police to impound a vehicle for 48 hours when they arrest, for operating under the influence of liquor or drugs, a driver whose license has been suspended or revoked (CGS § 14-227h).
This report examines the laws of the eight states that permit long-term impoundment and, where available, NHTSA's comments on how these laws are enforced.
Either CA has changed their suspension law, or they will now only impound those driving on a “suspended” license, but not those driving “without” a license. Incredible!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
