PMC the 1st
Junior Member
Background of crime:
Under Ca vehicle code: 14602.6, the police may impound the car, for 30 days, of a driver having a suspended license (the "driver"). This stemmed from AB 1133 written and passed in 1995. The 30-day impound is valid for suspended licenses of DUI's or speeding.
Nature of crime:
After the 30 days have elapsed, the driver may reclaim his vehicle after paying the fee for storage, which is around $1,000 (Total Impound Fee, or "TIF").
This is, of course, unconstitutional and illegal, because it all but guarantees that a violator of the law with a high earning capacity can retrieve his car from the impound lot after the 30-day impound and not count it a total loss. Someone with a car costing less than the TIF will never get to reclaim his automobile. This is class privilege because the person with the wealth reclaims his vehicle after the 30 days, while the person without the wealth does not reclaim his vehicle after the 30 days.
I'll cite an example:
Person A earns $1 million per month and owns a Bugatti Veyron--a $1 million car. Person B earns $1,000 per month and owns a used Civic--a $1,000 car.
Both drive their vehicles on a suspended license from a previous speeding conviction.
At the same time, both are arrested ("pulled over") for some reason. Both have their vehicles impounded, and for the mandatory 30 days.
After the 30 days, the owner of the Veyron reclaims his vehicle after paying the TIF of $1,000. The owner of the Civic does not retrieve his car, because the TIF is greater than the car's fair-market value.
Thus we have two people, punished in the same manner, but the wealthier of the two ends up with his car in the end, while the poorer of the two does not.
The 30-day impound can't be used as a deterrence measure, because studies show a driver is going to either drive his car on a suspended license or he is not; specific days of elapsure have no effect on this decision-making process.
Thus, the only reason for the 30-day rule to be placed in effect must have been to assure wealthy people can retrieve their cars after they have been impounded by the police. There is no other reason, whether obvious or not, for this 30-day impound requirement to be placed in effect.
Under Ca vehicle code: 14602.6, the police may impound the car, for 30 days, of a driver having a suspended license (the "driver"). This stemmed from AB 1133 written and passed in 1995. The 30-day impound is valid for suspended licenses of DUI's or speeding.
Nature of crime:
After the 30 days have elapsed, the driver may reclaim his vehicle after paying the fee for storage, which is around $1,000 (Total Impound Fee, or "TIF").
This is, of course, unconstitutional and illegal, because it all but guarantees that a violator of the law with a high earning capacity can retrieve his car from the impound lot after the 30-day impound and not count it a total loss. Someone with a car costing less than the TIF will never get to reclaim his automobile. This is class privilege because the person with the wealth reclaims his vehicle after the 30 days, while the person without the wealth does not reclaim his vehicle after the 30 days.
I'll cite an example:
Person A earns $1 million per month and owns a Bugatti Veyron--a $1 million car. Person B earns $1,000 per month and owns a used Civic--a $1,000 car.
Both drive their vehicles on a suspended license from a previous speeding conviction.
At the same time, both are arrested ("pulled over") for some reason. Both have their vehicles impounded, and for the mandatory 30 days.
After the 30 days, the owner of the Veyron reclaims his vehicle after paying the TIF of $1,000. The owner of the Civic does not retrieve his car, because the TIF is greater than the car's fair-market value.
Thus we have two people, punished in the same manner, but the wealthier of the two ends up with his car in the end, while the poorer of the two does not.
The 30-day impound can't be used as a deterrence measure, because studies show a driver is going to either drive his car on a suspended license or he is not; specific days of elapsure have no effect on this decision-making process.
Thus, the only reason for the 30-day rule to be placed in effect must have been to assure wealthy people can retrieve their cars after they have been impounded by the police. There is no other reason, whether obvious or not, for this 30-day impound requirement to be placed in effect.