Front Page  »  

Legal theft of vehicles will cease

December 27, 2011

A new law taking effect Jan. 1 will prohibit law enforcement from confiscating and towing vehicles of unlicensed drivers stopped at DUI checkpoints. [AssociatedPress]

The controversial practice has resulted in the taking  of thousands of vehicles and placing them in impound facilities, to be recovered at extraordinary costs.

Assemblyman Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles) authored the bill after witnessing the fiscal fraud debacle in Bell, where the city raked in huge profits from the practice.

According to legislative sponsors of the new prohibition, many of those hardest-hit by the confiscations are illegal immigrants.

Because of the practice’s effect on entire community populations, some people have taken to scouting out information about the location and timing of sobriety checkpoints, and passing that information along.


Loading...
Subjects:         
Related:


59 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Why should any new driver bother to get a license. All you have to do is pay a fine if caught driving without one. If you have a license, then you have to worry about points, or having your license suspended or revoked. Then, if you drive on a suspended or revoked license, you face jail time and more fines.


If you have a fake ID, then you don’t even have to pay the fines.


0

I think licenses and registrations are a complete waste of time. Think of the money we waste. Do they make us any safer? Doesn’t look like it!


0

People who aren’t licensed to drive should have their cars impounded on the spot. I don’t care what country their not from. When they take their $1000 automobile onto the road, they know they are breaking the law and that it can be taken away. All “one bill” Gill Cedillo wants is; to give the illegals drivers licenses and open the Mexican border. Sorry La Raza people – your Raza couldn’t beat our Raza when we took California from you.


0

As a U.S. born citizen, I really resent the breaks ALL the illegals (not just Mexicans) are getting. I don’t care if the “offspring” of these ILLEGALS were children when the parents snuck them into OUR COUNTRY, these people are NOT ABOVE THE LAW & should NOT receive special consessions, due to their ILLEGAL STATUS. If I’m stopped by law enforcement, I HAVE to show my drivers license & proof of insurance. Just because the majority of the ILLEGALS are driving BEATERS, doesn’t mean they should be held at a different standard than the rest of us. They need to follow our laws & suffer the same consequenses as the rest of us….


0

When is the right time to drop comprehensive and collision coverage on an old vehicle. The general rule is when the cost of comp and collision exceeds 10% of your old vehicle’s value, that’s the time to dump it and just have liability coverage. You can check your coverages using “Clearance Auto” online


0

I figured I’d take a beating on this but most of you misread the orginal story, it said many of those hit are illegal immigrants I didn’t put it in. I was in traffic court last week for a seat belt violation, I didn’t put it on for a couple blocks and got popped, while I was there two hispanics were there one for no insurance and one for no license, out of 100 people those were the only two with that violation.

I don’t really have a problem with the sober check points, I’m sorry we can’t get drunk and drive like its the Sixtys any longer, I think it might make some people think before they do it, and most of you don’t know or were on the ground yet but the California Highway Patrol used to vehicle safety checks randomly also in the mid 60’s this practice was stopped because it became a money issue.


0

12/28/2011 –

More than 100 people arrested during Central Coast DUI crackdown – http://on.msnbc.com/vw9w3b


0

Wow, must be a good Christmas for the tow companies!


0

Illegals are not going to go to court for their violations. The people you saw were likely here legally or were citizens.


0

Although the person in the case I talked about in another comment did not ever go to court, a good number of them do. I have no idea what percentage of them do, but it’s probably at least 25%. The constitution grants all people, not just citizens, equal protection under the law. They are entitled to due process and they are not automatically deported. The court is not part of the legislative branch and therefore is not intended to be the enforcement arm of the government. Police, prisons, and immigration are all part of the legislative branch.


0

I love the good ol’ US of A! We don’t want people here who are breaking our laws by being “illegal”, yet we continue to give them everything they want and more making even more want to come here…”illegally”.


0

And the price of bread in Cucamonga is going up.


0

“Because of the practice’s effect on entire community populations, some people have taken to scouting out information about the location and timing of sobriety checkpoints, and passing that information along.”


Now do we really believe that the majority of the DUI check point text messages are initiated by unlicensed drivers or do we believe that 95% of those text messages are from college kids and party people who warn everyone in their IPod (maybe hundreds) with the hit of one key. Ever been in a club and hear someone make a LOUD ANNOUNCEMENT about the check point down the road? It’s about the DUI laws, not the drivers license 95% of the time.


Actually I have to agree with the new ban. DUI check points are a violation of our 5th Amendment rights to freely travel upon the roads and we require no government approval such as a permit to do so.. Recently the higher courts have frequently ruled that driving, in fact is NOT A PRIVILEGED. DUI check points were only passed through the Supreme Courts with the understanding that they are not to be implemented to catch a DUI driver but only to discourage DUI drivers. This is why they must announce where and when the check points will be erected. They also must place these check points where a citizen has the option of taking an alternate route prior to being snagged in the check point. Technically, no DUI driver should ever be caught in a check point, the people who enter them are considered to do so voluntarily because they didn’t turn off (where the alternate route was clearly indicated!!) The very fact that we are stopped and checked or asked for our license is a violation of our rights.


The attached link identifies many higher court rulings/cases including the US Supreme Court concerning our right to travel without a permit (drivers license) etc and the illegal intrusion of DUI check points.


http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm


0

5th Amendment right to travel freely on the road?? That is the worst interpretation of the 5th EVER. I am surprised all the liberals on this site did not throw out the 4th Amendment, which prohibits search and SEIZURE of property. What ever happened to taking personal responsibility? Why do you point the finger at the government when the law is broken and people are punished? You drive without a license, you lose your car. Don’t like it? Then don’t drive illegally. You can get the car back, with a large fine. That is called PUNISHMENT and DETERRENCE. Ever been hit by someone who does not have vehicle insurance? Not fun and costly. A DUI checkpoint gets some idiots off the road that do not deserve to be there. If you are law abiding you pass thru with no issue and maybe are stopped for 30 seconds, maybe not at all. Break the law and lose your car. Boo hoo. Don’t break the law.


0

Stop it, you are making too much sense.


0

No, he’s not. People are already getting fined for whatever infraction or law that they are breaking. By taking the car they are double fining and in many cases taking something of high value that doesn’t fit the crime.


Why he’s babbling on about insurance I don’t know. We have laws about insurance and whether the state takes you car or not there is already a punishment on the books for this.


If a guy gets pulled over for a DUI the punishment without taking the car is very very punitive as it is.


You people are under the misunderstanding that taking the car is meant as a punishment, it’s not it’s a money maker and that all, nothing more.


0

Once again you are misinformed. The care is not TAKEN, it is stored at the tow yard. The person can go get it. DUI is the best example for the REASON to get the car towed. I am not okay with a drunk idiot driving a 3,000 pound weapon around the streets. The car is towed BECAUSE the DUI was arrested, not BECAUSE he was DUI. The Police will not leave a vehicle on the streets after arresting a DUI, or anyone else, because the Police are responsible for it being there now. For you to feel bad for the DUI driver who loses his vehicel overnight has never seen the vicitm of a DUI traffic collsion. They should lose the car for more than just a day or two. Again, boo hoo. don’t break the law.


0

Kinda funny, I keep spelling car as ‘care’ just as you did but I managed to see it each time before I hit ‘send’.


It cost money to get the car from the tow yard, it cost a lot of money. I don’t feel bad for the DUI driver, but I might depending on the circumstances feel bad for thier family or friends. I have no idea what it is now, perhaps someone else here does but I know that if you get caught DUI then you will have to pay a fortune in fines as well as other punitive actions that will be taken against you. Last time I heard, they take your licence for a year. I don’t know if it’s true but the last I heard was that a DUI will cost about $14K. Now you want the mom, spouse, friend etc. to also pay. Enough is enough. There are laws to punish those that break the law without having to rob everyone else to attain more money for the state.


0

Then I am the typo KING!


0

Sorry but it is you who is misinformed. If the driver is unlicensed The car is taken and HELD FOR 30 DAYS with no due process whether you are found guilty or not.. It is such a clear violation of the Constitution it’s ridiculous. But, apparently, you don’t support American values and have no problem with presuming someone guilty until they prove innocence.


0

Guess again mkaney, I am more informed than you I am sure of it. If a driver is unlicensed they are advised by DMV and that advisement is printed on the driver’s license history. They KNOW they do not have a license! Additionally, if within that 30 day HOLD they get the license valid, then they can come and pick up the car at any time. It is clearly NOT a violation of the Constitution. People are seized (arrested) every day based on probable cause. They are jailed pending trial. Same thing, right? They too have to prove their innocence before they are released from jail, unless the Judge OR’s them. Again, these people KNOWINGLY broke the law!!!


0

Yeha I realize that they consider their notification to be proof that the driver knows. However I had a suspended license, did not receive notification even with an updated address, and received two speeding tickets WHILE it was suspended, so clearly the officers didn’t know either. I was then pulled over on a COMPLETELY BOGUS violation by an incredibly hostile police officer and my car was impounded. I scheduled a hearing with a supposedly independent hearing officer which didn’t take place in the 10 days that the law states that it must, and and provided evidence that the charge which resulted in the detainment was bogus AND that I was unaware of the suspension AND that my right to a hearing within 10 days was not violated, and my appeal was denied.


I chose to represent myself, and after sharing the story with the DA, had my charge reduced to an infraction and pled. I would not even have accepted this plea bargain but certain people had already gone through a lot of trouble for me as a result of this and it would not have been right of me to drag it out any further.


It ultimately cost me a great deal of money to get the car back.


Let me add to this story… several months before I was the victim of a hit and run. The responsible party was an illegal with no insurance. I asked the DA to not press charges and instead allow me to work something out with the guy where he could pay restitution over an extended period of time (just to cover my out of pocket expenses and deductible), but the police officer and the DA in the room looked at me like I was crazy and said that it could not be done that way, they had to press charges. So of course the guy skipped the country, breaking up his family, leaving me empty handed, and them without a conviction anyway.


Now tell me, WHOSE INTEREST does this system serve?


0

Again my point is that the Constitution does not allow for seizure of property WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. Got it? It’s pretty straightforward no matter how you want to spin it.


0

Our rights are very precious and we must never take them for granted or give them up because other people are jerks. Cars generally aren’t impounded for DUI drivers. DUI drivers are allowed to call a friend because DUI drivers are generally released as soon as the paper work is finished. The reason they take the car from unlicensed drivers is to STOP the person from breaking the law and driving without a license. The problem is that they usually require that the vehicle is impounded for 30 days and that is where the excessive expense is incurred.


However, I don’t want people driving without a license or insurance either. A license is necessary to ensure that we are familiar with the rules and regulations that safeguard all citizens, as does insurance. We all have a right to be safe when we’re on the road but I can not condone the automatic 30 day impound of a vehicle regardless of who owns it, etc.


I think the vehicle should be towed to the subjects home and a boot should be placed on it. The driver or owner should have to pay for this cost along with a fine. Upon proof of a valid drivers license, insurance , proper registration and receipt of all towing costs and court imposed restitution, the vehicle will be released to the owner or a designated family member or other responsible party . To the extent that the vehicle is involved in another incident involving an unlicensed driver, the car will be booted for 30 days and the fine will be assessed at double and so on.


It put’s a damper on LEO getting the idea that they can deprive citizens of their rightful property while realizing a gain for the effort. That’s dangerous and we must not allow it. Those jerks from the NTF cleaned out everyone’s life long savings accounts and checking accounts when they raided them for their legal medical marijuana. I can’t imagine what possessed them (the NTF) to believe they had the right. Some citizens were left unable to pay their utility bills or even purchase groceries.


0

Have driver’s licenses make the roads safer? Methinks not at all. Then what are they good for?


0

Hell, I like to think that if Ted Kennedy had gone thru a DUI Checkpoint, Mary Jo might be a grandma this very day!


0

Obviously you just wanted an excuse to bag on Kennedy. Even though he’s dead that’s not good enough. Of course if he had driven through a DUI checkpoint she wouldn’t have died. Perhaps Bush wouldn’t have been president to destroy this country while causing the deaths of tens of thousands of people if he had driven through a DUI check point, god knows he was quite a drunk.


0

Actually it’s me he’s trying to bag on. About 3 years ago, yes it really has been that long, I mentioned that it wasn’t Teddy who was driving the car but it was MaryJo. He has never let me forget it or missed a chance to drop a sarcastic innuendo. But it’s true, Teddy wasn’t even in the car and I know this because I have a family member who is a high ranking Democrat and he is close to the Kennedy’s, particularly Patrick. My family used to vacation out at Martha’s Vineyard, we all knew the Kennedy’s and were familiar with Chappaquiddick Island and the bridge to the ferry. The real truth actually makes perfect sense once you hear it but unfortunately, Teddy loved women and his PR machine was more concerned about his rumored infidelity than they were about people asking questions about why he couldn’t pull her out of the car. The fact is, he didn’t know she had gone off the bridge until he sobered up the next morning and went to look for her (that part is a long story). When he saw the railing on the bridge, he knew what happened and he jumped in. He didn’t find her because she should have been in the drivers seat but she was in the back. He didn’t go for help because he thought she had got out. So he swam across the cove and went to her motel room and was seen banging on her door at 6:45AM all soaking wet. When she wasn’t home, he still thought that she had got out and he continued to look for her and call her friends. He was so obviously distraught that the PR machine thought they could explain it all away as shock because he was in shock. The truth would be sort of funny if she hadn’t drove off the bridge, she wasn’t familiar with that bridge, especially at night, and she had been drinking and she was driving extremely fast because she was intentionally leading some unfriendly media on a wild goose chase. She and Teddy thought it would be funny for her to take these “snoops” on a catch us if you can chase and in the end, they would find that Teddy had somehow disappeared! When MaryJo went off the bridge, Teddy was already back at the party sitting in the back of his friends car, very drunk, waiting for MaryJo to return so they could walk back in together and simply say that she missed the ferry. He fell asleep waiting. That’s pretty much the story, void of all the extra details.


0

That’s pretty interesting. I’ve heard bits and pieces of a story like that, ie the part about her driving. I’ve also heard that he thought that Mary Jo got out. We’ve never really had a good explanation of that night IMO so I feel your story is plausible.


0

Why would they make up a story for the public that is much worse than what supposedly happened? Sounds more like a story the family made up to excuse Ted’s bad behavior. Leaving the scene of an accident, not reporting the accident until the next morning, and leaving someone to die, is much worse than having an affair.


0

It was all character assassination. All meant to discredit Teddy. If the spooks actually killed him, the narcotised masses might even notice THREE brothers representing liberal values being bumped off simultaneously.


Mary Jo Kopechne was a trusted secretary for Robert Kennedy. Had been around the family for many years.


Check out the testimony of Deputy Sheriff Mick Huck, who saw TWO men driving the Kennedy car, and taking a wrong turn , then backing up and speeding towards the bridge.


Teddy Kennedy was not a perfect person. He was not as brave as his brothers, but he lived and suffered to protect his family.

Why so many do not see that admitted liars like Nixon and Reagan ordered killings for political gain is beyond reason.


0

Back in the day Nixon and Ted Kennedy formed a law firm named “Dickem and Dunkem”


0

Hey, Apathy!


WADDAYOU!? THE GOOD HUMOR MAN!? YA GONNA MAKE ME PEE!


0

I heard that you really did do that on the hallway floor during a BOS meeting?? I hope it’s just a rumor. Not trying to be mean, I’ve been really curious about that one.


0

Good lord. What is wrong with you people?


0

That was enlightening.


0

“Legal theft of vehicles will cease”


Theft? Don’t think so. extortion is more like it.


I’m still waiting for the editors of this site to get in the middle and abandon their transparent agenda.


News Site? Give me a flippen brake!


0

Why do you read it?


0

It’s an alternative to cutting.


0

Please. Cut.


0

Paso:


DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ADJUST YOUR SET!

WE CONTROL THE HORIZONTAL…..

WE CONTROL THE VERTICAL….


0

Was that spelled “brake” because the story involves cars, or did you just misspell “break”?


0

No insurance,no drivers license, no legal visa,no speeky english, no problemo, let them roam around on uninsured junk and when they get in an accident watch them run like rabbits, the rest of us follow the rules, what makes them different.


0

So you think it is a good idea to allow the government to confiscate private property, and charge outrageous recovery fees, because of a traffic violation? And you wouldn’t mind if the government confiscated your house because of a permit violation?


By the way, putting your racist comments aside, please realize that this law doesn’t just apply to illegal immigrants.


And your comment “the rest of us follow the rules” is also misguided and bigoted and basically incorrect. American citizens are also know to drive cars without insurance or without a driver’s license.


Why turn every discussion into some racist, hate-filled diatribe against people born outside the U.S.?


0

Study Shows Santa Maria has Most Hit and Runs Statewide, Police Crack Down-

http://www.4injured-losangeles.com/study-shows-santa-maria-has-most-hit-and-runs-statewide-police-crack-down/


This is a much needed tool to remove those legal and illegal from the roads,this will only add to the problem, its another way of allowing and condoning the presence of illegals.


0

This won’t make any difference regarding the issue that you mention. The illegal citizens that want to drive will drive. I’m not sure how you guys read the issue and bring illegal immigration into this. I just thought of all the people illegal or not that are having their property taken away and being forced to pay huge amounts to get their vehicles back all for the purpose of the cities to make extra dough. A lot of white people, black people, brown people, young people, old people, women, men etc. get their vehicles confiscated we are all getting burnt on this policy of getting our cars confiscated. This leads to unwarranted confiscation and harassment (as they mentioned the City of Bell) by the cities as well as the tow companies.


If a person gets pulled over for drunk driving, why shouldn’t they be allowed to have someone come get their car? They are already going to pay out the nose do we have to completely ruin them?


0

“illegal citizens” is an oxymoron…


0

A good majority of vehicles driven by those “illegals” are owned by persons other than the person driving and caught at that DUI checkpoint. If I loan my car to someone who gets a DUI, I certainly should be able to go get my car.


0

That’s right. It’s not your fault if someone gets drunk while driving your car or violates some other law. Why should you be punished? You could even say, what if my spouse goes out and gets drunk or violates some traffic law. Should my whole family suffer because of him, what if I depend on that vehicle for work? Good point.


0

I’ll tell you what the problem is in Santa Maria, it’s the freakin cops and D.A. I was a victim of a hit and run in Santa Maria, and fortunately was able to chase down the runner, who had left his wife behind in the car. When the D.A. subpoenaed me to come in and talk about the charges against the guy, I asked if he was a citizen. Upon them telling me he was not, I suggested to them that if they pressed charges it was only going to cause him to skip the country and then it would mess his life up, his family up, and I would receive no restitution (nobody wins, everyone loses). I suggested that they cut a deal with the guy which would allow him to pay me restitution (my deductible and out of pocket expenses, since he was uninsured), and not put him into such a position, and they laughed in my face and told me that was not possible and that they were not willing to not prosecute the crime. Whose interests were they serving?


0

You make a great point M. Our legal system is overly focused on punishment, rather than restitution, even though evidence shows that requiring criminals to do restitution is one of the most effective ways to prevent recidivism, especially among young people.


0

Good point. Welcom to the crony collectivist state.


0

I agree. This law effects everyone, not just the ‘brown people’. Why bring race into this?


0

Some people can only see by race. Sad but true.


0

Myself, you miss the point. “Sobriety checkpoints” are a POLICE STATE tactic. They are stopping people WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE. That is ILLEGAL! The next thing you know, they will be stopping you on the street, or at the mall. In fact, they are already doing that! (See below):


Mall of America visitors unknowingly end up in counterterrorism reports


Sep 8, 2011


http://www.kare11.com/news/article/937492/396/MOA-visitors-unknowingly-end-up-in-counterterrorism-reports?odyssey=obinsite


Does THIS sound like the kind of country that you want to live in?????


Count me out!


0

Mysel, remove the illegal aliens from the equation and THIS IS STILL A VIOLATION OF OUR CIVIL RIGHTS!


0
1 2