• 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.

Ca Assy comitting class-warfare against the poor!

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.

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.
 


CourtClerk

Senior Member
You were already banned from the other board, so don't come over here with the same mess or you will suffer the same fate.
 

racer72

Senior Member
Please state the portion of the Constitution that states laws must take into account the income of the people affected by the law. The last time I checked owning and driving a motor vehicle is a privelige, not a right.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
Oh my goodness, he's right! Not only in his example, but the ENTIRE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Whenever there is a fine or a bail amount the rich can afford to pay it better than the poor. Any traffic ticket or crime is affected. Now that we're thinking about it, licensing fees, if not ratable based on income or wealth are unconstitutional. Sales taxes the same way.

On a completely different topic, I'm having a bit of a hard time financially right now. Can I do something about having to pay 25 cents for a newspaper? Last week that would have been fine, but this week my shoes are a little tight. Can I sue?
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
Well actually there have been valid Constitutional claims on fines, but this certainly is a far cry from them. The old 30 days or 30 dollars type of sentence is pretty much not allowed as it predisposes incarceration for the indigent.
 

Some Random Guy

Senior Member
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France

Driving is a priviledge and not a right. Driving while your license is suspended is a crime and you should not committ the crime with out being willing to pay the price for it.
 

cyjeff

Senior Member
To give you a little background.

The OP has now experienced his third DUI and is convinced that the system is out to get him.

Why yes, I think "slow learner" covers it.

He also doesn't seem to understand that most of us frequent more than one legal board.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
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").
Actually, it's closer to $1,800 before the agency's vehicle release fee.

- Carl
 

PMC the 1st

Junior Member
Oh my goodness, he's right! Not only in his example, but the ENTIRE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Whenever there is a fine or a bail amount the rich can afford to pay it better than the poor. Any traffic ticket or crime is affected. Now that we're thinking about it, licensing fees, if not ratable based on income or wealth are unconstitutional. Sales taxes the same way.
I believe you are misunderstanding the whole concept.
When the police take the car, they seize the car. Based on the fact that the car is a "public nuisance." That means the car is being taken not as a deterrent measure (unlike the paying of a fine on a traffic citation), but a different legal measure altogether.

Again, the 30-day impound is not meant to be a deterrent in any way. Thus, you can't say, "Yep! Another loser complaining yet again about how unfair the system is..."
I am not arguing in favor of a sliding-scale. I am arguing the ligitamacy of the impound from a different standpoint.

Can someone here answer my question? Someone with a brain, that is?
 

PMC the 1st

Junior Member
Please state the portion of the Constitution that states laws must take into account the income of the people affected by the law. The last time I checked owning and driving a motor vehicle is a privelige, not a right.
The purpose of this thread is not to bring up a constitutional deficiency with traffic law, but a deficiency with wealth disparity.
That's why I put this thread here instead of the 'Traffic Law" section.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
30 day impounds are Constitutional provided a community caretaking need can be articulated (which is not too difficult unless the car is safely parked in the owner's driveway or in front of the house).

You don't like it. Lobby for a change. Good luck with that.

But, insulting one of the most intelligent and articulate posters on this board is NOT the way to go about proving your point.

Oh, and precisely what "question" have you asked? I must have missed it because I haven't seen that you asked one.

- Carl
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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