• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Normal operating procedures for lapd?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

maihrs

Junior Member
California
My problem is....I was stopped by lapd at LAX for stopping on a red curb (to let my husband out of car while picking up my elderly g-mom arriving from the UK.)

The police officer pulled me over. I asked him what I was being stopped for, he said red curb. OK, guilty I thought. He asked for Driver's Licence. I handed him my NY Licence (no points or anything...in good standing). He asked how long I have been living here. I answered 1 year. He informed me that I was required to get a CA Licence w/in 10 days and asked why hadn't I done that. I looked perplexed and answered honestly " I guess I'm lazy?" (I still have my NY cell phone # for heaven's sake!). He asked if owned the car and asked for registration and insurance. Fine, it was all properly registered and insured in CA.

After some time, he returned and asked for my keys. I handed them to him at which time he informed my that my car was being impounded.
"Are you joking?!", I asked.
I signed the ticket, a misdemeanor for driving w/out a drivers licence (12500a) and a warning for stopping on red curb.

So the long and short of it, after a lot of arguing between me and the officer and my husband and the officer and his sergeant, who showed up, my husband (who has his CA Driver's licence) talked the sergeant into letting us take the car. The sergeant only agreed to because of my 85yo g-mom sitting there in her wheel chair waiting.

So we left, not realizing the officer forgot to give us my keys back. He mailed them after we made a phone call to his sergeant. Stupidly, and maybe on purpose, he put my microchipped key and remote in a standard #10 envelope. Of course, all I received was the envelope with a big hole in it and no keys. ($110 for key and $185 for remote to replace).

I called the sergeant to complain, had a heated discussion, with him saying that he should have towed the car and that I could have gone to jail, but nothing about my keys. My husband then informed him that we would be filing a complaint.

My problem is this...would they reallly have been within their rights to tow my car when I didn't have a previous conviction for driving w/out a licence/suspension/revocation, or anything else for that matter and, my husband was there and had a CA licence? Would it have been a usual thing to impound? The law is unclear, in my opinion, after studying 14602.6 (they can, it seems) and 14607.6 (they can't unless I have a previous conviction for licence problems). I am startled that I will have a misdemeanor, but I guess I am guilty of that! But the whole towing/impounding thing seems unreasonable!

I am really upset at the whole treatment I/we received and I want to complain. Was it fair/legal to impound in the first place? Court appearance is mandatory for the misdemeanor...Can I complain to the Judge that towing is unreasonable and they took and lost my keys?

Am I the only one who feels like it is no big deal to not have a CA licence when I have a perfectly valid NY licence? Is this a law intended for people who never get a proper licence in the first place?

Thanks for any help or insight!What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?
 


Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
I think it IS a big deal. You need to follow the laws of the land...when in Rome and all that good stuff.

Yes, your car could have been towed...could you have been arrested...I suppose so.
 

maihrs

Junior Member
Are you saying I could be arrested because it says so in a specific law? Do you know which law it is? Which law says that I can have my car impounded? 14607.6 says that I have to have a prior conviction for 12500a or driving on suspended/revoked before they have a right to impound. 14602.6 seems to say they can impound for all licence violations. These two contradict each other in regards to 12500a. That is where I am confused.
I am hoping to get some solid answers.
Thanks:)
 

CourtClerk

Senior Member
OP you are completely WRONG in all of this. You do NOT have to have a prior conviction for a 12500 or any of the 14601 series of violations to have your vehicle impounded. Simply stated, if you do not have a California license and are driving in California, YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW and are subject to having your vehicle impounded. Now... in order to have your vehicle forfeited, you must have a prior conviction, but you ought to count your blessings and stop whining, because it could have also meant a 30 DAY HOLD on your vehicle which meant your car could have been impounded for 30 days, and you responsible for the impound fees at the end.

This is what I don't understand when I get to work in the mornings. People all day long hooping and hollering about what rights they have and what they THINK is the law (when most times they are dead in the water). The LAPD was well within their rights to impound your car (and after this post...probably should have). Lucky for you, 12500 can be treated as infractions, they are 0 points on your license and you'll probably get off with a fine if you go get your CA license and surrender your NY license.
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
My problem is this...would they reallly have been within their rights to tow my car when I didn't have a previous conviction for driving w/out a licence/suspension/revocation, or anything else for that matter and, my husband was there and had a CA licence? Would it have been a usual thing to impound? The law is unclear, in my opinion, after studying 14602.6 (they can, it seems) and 14607.6 (they can't unless I have a previous conviction for licence problems). I am startled that I will have a misdemeanor, but I guess I am guilty of that! But the whole towing/impounding thing seems unreasonable!
The only thing that saved you was that you had someone there who was legal to drive in CA. Of course they're going to impound the car. You expect them to say, oh, you don't have a license, you're free to drive away?

If you hurry down and get a CA license now, you might get some leniency from the judge and have the charge dismissed. A lawyer familiar with the local traffic court wouldn't hurt.
 

moburkes

Senior Member
Simply stated, if you do not have a California license and are driving in California, YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW and are subject to having your vehicle impounded.
Just wanted to clarify. If you are LIVING in CA for more than 10 days, and don't have a CA license, THEN you are violating the law. If you are visiting/vacationing, then you are legally able to drive.
 

maihrs

Junior Member
OP you are completely WRONG in all of this. You do NOT have to have a prior conviction for a 12500 or any of the 14601 series of violations to have your vehicle impounded. Simply stated, if you do not have a California license and are driving in California, YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW and are subject to having your vehicle impounded. Now... in order to have your vehicle forfeited, you must have a prior conviction, but you ought to count your blessings and stop whining, because it could have also meant a 30 DAY HOLD on your vehicle which meant your car could have been impounded for 30 days, and you responsible for the impound fees at the end.

This is what I don't understand when I get to work in the mornings. People all day long hooping and hollering about what rights they have and what they THINK is the law (when most times they are dead in the water). The LAPD was well within their rights to impound your car (and after this post...probably should have). Lucky for you, 12500 can be treated as infractions, they are 0 points on your license and you'll probably get off with a fine if you go get your CA license and surrender your NY license.
I don't mean to offend anyone, and I don't understand why my trying to find out information about my situtation would make you dicide maybe I should have had my car impounded. Are you saying "maximum sentence for all who question?"
This is a democracy and if you can't question the laws and your individual rights, then this country is nothing. And if someone just takes what another person says, when this person may not be entirely convesant in the law and who conveys emotions when explaining laws and the treatment/punishement a person receives, and takes it as fact, they can easily be misinformed and suffer the consequences. I am trying to find real answers so I can't figure out what is going on!

Now, I think this is a very strong law considering they were insistant on impounding when my husband was with me, a properly licenced in CA co-owner of the car! The sergeant only said he would release the car to my husband ONLY because my grandmother was there sitting in a wheelchair waiting. Why would he want to impound when my husband could drive???? So is this "letter of the law" the best was to go for the police, or should they consider "spirit of the law". Or is is something really pressed by the state to just go all the way to the extent??? And again, I do not deny that I am guilty of driving without a CA Drivers licence.

As for the tow CVC's, 14602.6 and 14607.6, what is the reason for two laws that say two different things regarding the same violation, 12500a. How do the police choose which one to use, and why are there two choices????

:confused:
 

moburkes

Senior Member
There was no requirement for them to allow your husband to drive the vehicle, after you broke the law. They allowed that as a courtesy.
 

moburkes

Senior Member
Unlawful to Drive Unless Licensed
12500. (a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway, unless the person then holds a valid driver's license issued under this code, except those persons who are expressly exempted under this code.
***
14602.6 does not refer to you.
***
Impoundment and Forfeiture of Motor Vehicles
14607.6. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as provided in this section, a motor vehicle is subject to forfeiture as a nuisance if it is driven on a highway in this state by a driver with a suspended or revoked license, or by an unlicensed driver, who is a registered owner of the vehicle at the time of impoundment and has a previous misdemeanor conviction for a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 12500 or Section 14601, 14601.1, 14601.2, 14601.3, 14601.4, or 14601.5. (b) A peace officer shall not stop a vehicle for the sole reason of determining whether the driver is properly licensed.

(c) (1) If a driver is unable to produce a valid driver's license on the demand of a peace officer enforcing the provisions of this code, as required by subdivision (b) of Section 12951, the vehicle shall be impounded regardless of ownership, unless the peace officer is reasonably able, by other means, to verify that the driver is properly licensed. Prior to impounding a vehicle, a peace officer shall attempt to verify the license status of a driver who claims to be properly licensed but is unable to produce the license on demand of the peace officer.

(2) A peace officer shall not impound a vehicle pursuant to this subdivision if the license of the driver expired within the preceding 30 days and the driver would otherwise have been properly licensed.

***
This lists specific reasons to impound your vehicle. It does NOT say that they are the ONLY reasons to impound your vehicle.
 

maihrs

Junior Member
The only thing that saved you was that you had someone there who was legal to drive in CA. Of course they're going to impound the car. You expect them to say, oh, you don't have a license, you're free to drive away?

If you hurry down and get a CA license now, you might get some leniency from the judge and have the charge dismissed. A lawyer familiar with the local traffic court wouldn't hurt.
My husband, who has CA licence and is co-owner of the car was with me, and herein lies my need to question. Why tow? Which CVC applies, and how do they choose which CVC to follow? And why are there choices? Why did they make that decision initially?:confused:

I don't think the judge will have any leniency for me, it seems this law is very strong. But thanks for the smidgeon of hope! And I won't even get into how I feel about this in regards to someone who has been licened for many years, just hasn't done the paperwork and fees in a new state!
 

moburkes

Senior Member
And I won't even get into how I feel about this in regards to someone who has been licened for many years, just hasn't done the paperwork and fees in a new state!
There is no need for you to attempt to defend your blatant violation of the law.
 

maihrs

Junior Member
***
14602.6 does not refer to you.
***
Impoundment and Forfeiture of Motor Vehicles
14607.6. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as provided in this section, a motor vehicle is subject to forfeiture as a nuisance if it is driven on a highway in this state by a driver with a suspended or revoked license, or by an unlicensed driver, who is a registered owner of the vehicle at the time of impoundment and has a previous misdemeanor conviction for a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 12500 or Section 14601, 14601.1, 14601.2, 14601.3, 14601.4, or 14601.5. (b) A peace officer shall not stop a vehicle for the sole reason of determining whether the driver is properly licensed.
I do not have a previous conviction, so 14607.6 does not apply. Why doesn't 14602.6 apply to me?

Thanks!
 

moburkes

Senior Member
I'm sorry you feel that it is wrong to question laws in a democracy!:eek:
You're not questioning a law. I said that there was no reason for you to defend violating the law which said that you need to get a CA license w/in 10 days of moving to CA.

You are correct, in that the other section does apply to you. The section states that your vehicle can be impounded.

Vehicle Impoundment: Suspended, Revoked, or Unlicensed Driver: Hearing
14602.6.
(a) (1) Whenever a peace officer determines that a person was driving a vehicle while his or her driving privilege was suspended or revoked, driving a vehicle while his or her driving privilege is restricted pursuant to Section 13352 or 23575 and the vehicle is not equipped with a functioning, certified interlock device, or driving a vehicle without ever having been issued a driver’s license, the peace officer may either immediately arrest that person and cause the removal and seizure of that vehicle or, if the vehicle is involved in a traffic collision, cause the removal and seizure of the vehicle without the necessity of arresting the person in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 22650) of Division 11. A vehicle so impounded shall be impounded for 30 days.

So not only was your vehicle not impounded, you were not arrested.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top