Impoundment of Car, was this legal?

[ragnarkar]

Dunno..

But driving without license is illegal without a doubt..

What does the legal code say about impounding the car in that case?

[mr bolo]

you got what you deserved, I hope you learned your lesson, if your husband had a valid driver license, the policeman may have givin you a break for the tinted license plate covers

unlicensed / uninsured drivers are illegal

[cardozoj]

This is an old post and the original poster is long gone, but wanted to chip in my 2 cents as a lawyer.

There's only one thing that I take issue with as far as law enforcement's conduct.

The police impounded her car for 30 days despite her not being charged with or convicted of anything.
Effectively, she was punished without a trial. It was probably fine for them to tow it to the impound lot, but refusing to release it for 30 days is a big problem.

We happen to know, in this case, that she was guilty of knowingly giving the car to the husband when he didn't have a license (I'll assume that's probably a crime), because she admits it. Fine. Step one, charges. Step two, trial. Step three: sentence, which might include a fine, impound of the car, or jail time (which seems more appropriate here frankly given that she is a repeat offender). That's how the system works here. By subjecting the car to a 30-day impound without a trial the police are doing an end run around the court system and imposing punishment without a prior, impartial adjudication of guilt. It may seem relatively harmless, but taking away someone's car for 30 days is a big deal and you can't have that happening to people who are wrongly accused--to determine if they are wrongly accused, you need a trial.

[Fontucky]

Give the coppers an inch, they'll always take a mile. Why? Because they're lazy.

[415_s2k]

May as well throw this in...

I have court in two days for a traffic violation in which the cop wrote me up for going waaaaaay faster than I was; wrote me a ticket for not having changed the address on my license a few months ago (I wrote it on the back where there's a spot for it; I got a new license with the address on it); and wrote me up for not having a plate on the front, when it was my girlfriend's car.

I know I'll have to battle the speeding part on my own, but the front license thing really gets my goat. The cop (CHP) was a complete and total a-hole and in all seriousness had no reason to pull me over. I was going probably around 70-72 and he told me I was going "at least 90" but couldn't give me an exact number, and just wrote me up for going 80... and told me that he was doing me a favor by not arresting me for reckless endangerment.

What's the deal with getting a fix-it ticket when it's not even your car?

[cardozoj]

Originally Posted by 415_s2k

May as well throw this in...

I have court in two days for a traffic violation in which the cop wrote me up for going waaaaaay faster than I was; wrote me a ticket for not having changed the address on my license a few months ago (I wrote it on the back where there's a spot for it; I got a new license with the address on it); and wrote me up for not having a plate on the front, when it was my girlfriend's car.

I know I'll have to battle the speeding part on my own, but the front license thing really gets my goat. The cop (CHP) was a complete and total a-hole and in all seriousness had no reason to pull me over. I was going probably around 70-72 and he told me I was going "at least 90" but couldn't give me an exact number, and just wrote me up for going 80... and told me that he was doing me a favor by not arresting me for reckless endangerment.

What's the deal with getting a fix-it ticket when it's not even your car?

As the driver of the car, you are responsible for the operating condition. Technically it is improper for him to give you a "fix-it" ticket (a dismissable ticket), because under the circumstances, you are unable to get the car fixed. (That's buried in the vehicle code somewhere.) If he issues a ticket in that circumstance it should be non-dismissable. Nonetheless, if your girlfriend gets the issue fixed, you can still probably get the ticket dismissed, which is good, right?

First, on the speeding ticket, you need to consider just paying it. It's very difficult to get a fair trial in traffic court. I sat there one day and watched 40+ trials go down with blatant perjury, officers testifying from inadmissible hearsay, etc., and the traffic commissioner finding every single person guilty. If it is "he said, he said" and a conviction must be beyond a reasonable doubt, any conviction is wrongful absent the state putting forward other evidence. That didn't stop the "judge" (and I use that term loosely) from acting like the prosecutor, cross-examining defendants (in violation of their fifth and fourth amendment rights), etc.

What's going to happen in your case is that the cop is going to show up and give his version of events (either he will read off his notes on the back of the ticket or he'll commit probable perjury and act like he remembers the scenario in detail), and unless you have affirmative, substantial proof of innocence, you are almost certain to be convicted. From the police officers' perspective, this is called "Testilying", one of their core job duties. (To be fair, if the government actually had to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in traffic court, it would be very hard to run an economically profitable conviction mill, which is what it is there for. And they'd have to come up with another source of funding for the 5 major programs that the ticket revenue supports.)

[415_s2k]

Originally Posted by cardozoj

As the driver of the car, you are responsible for the operating condition. Technically it is improper for him to give you a "fix-it" ticket (a dismissable ticket), because under the circumstances, you are unable to get the car fixed. (That's buried in the vehicle code somewhere.) If he issues a ticket in that circumstance it should be non-dismissable. Nonetheless, if your girlfriend gets the issue fixed, you can still probably get the ticket dismissed, which is good, right?

First, on the speeding ticket, you need to consider just paying it. It's very difficult to get a fair trial in traffic court. I sat there one day and watched 40+ trials go down with blatant perjury, officers testifying from inadmissible hearsay, etc., and the traffic commissioner finding every single person guilty. If it is "he said, he said" and a conviction must be beyond a reasonable doubt, any conviction is wrongful absent the state putting forward other evidence. That didn't stop the "judge" (and I use that term loosely) from acting like the prosecutor, cross-examining defendants (in violation of their fifth and fourth amendment rights), etc.

What's going to happen in your case is that the cop is going to show up and give his version of events (either he will read off his notes on the back of the ticket or he'll commit probable perjury and act like he remembers the scenario in detail), and unless you have affirmative, substantial proof of innocence, you are almost certain to be convicted. From the police officers' perspective, this is called "Testilying", one of their core job duties. (To be fair, if the government actually had to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in traffic court, it would be very hard to run an economically profitable conviction mill, which is what it is there for. And they'd have to come up with another source of funding for the 5 major programs that the ticket revenue supports.)

Yeah, I'm hoping I can just plead no contest...