Car Impounded for 30 days - PD not complying

[jddean123]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

As per my previous thread, Car Impounded for 30 Days, my car has been towed. I now have a new issue. The PD will not release the vehicle to me as per 14602.6 (d) (1) which states:

14602.6 (d) (1) An impounding agency shall release a vehicle to the registered owner or his or her agent prior to the end of 30 days’ impoundment under any of the following circumstances:

And then 14602.6 (d) (1) (E) which states:

(E) When the driver reinstates his or her driver’s license or acquires a driver’s license and proper insurance.

^ = V.C. Section 14602.6 - Vehicle Impoundment: Suspended, Revoked, or Unlicensed Driver: Hearing

I have reinstated my license and have insurance and the only answer I get from anyone at the PD is that I "have to go to the post-tow hearing to possibly get the car back". I spent all day today trying to get someone at the PD to answer this simple question: "What law/V.C. says that I have to go to the Post-tow hearing for THIS exception in the law?" So far I have not received an answer to that question. Just the same statement of "You have to go to the post-tow hearing to possibly get the car back".

Again just to clarify the question is merely: What law/V.C. says that I HAVE to go to the post-tow hearing for THIS exception in the law?

 

[CdwJava]

You have to attend the hearing because that is the process by which you get the car back. It is about due process. Unless you present your evidence in the proper venue, or forever hold your peace.

It is like having a piece of evidence that proves your innocence of a crime but deciding you should not have to show up for court to be proven not guilty.

So, either go to the hearing and get the car back, or, don't go to the hearing and pay more.

 

[jddean123]

Again, nothing that says that I have to do that in the law. I understand that if I get a citation it says on it that I HAVE to go to court, there is a law that backs that up. So far I have yet to see anything that backs up what these officers are saying regarding this exception.

More of what I am going on is that that part of the VC just says "shall release a vehicle...under any of the following circumstances". It does not however say "shall release a vehicle...under any of the following circumstances upon a post-tow hearing".

One thing that I forgot to mention was that every officer that I have spoken to said that by going to the post-tow hearing I MIGHT get the car back. I have fulfilled the requirements as per the CVC. Why wouldn't I get the car back?

 

[CdwJava]

Just waving your license in the lobby is not going to do it. In most departments there is a person who is assigned to evaluate and approve these things - much like a judge or pro tem. Until THAT person approves and signs off on the release, it is not a done deal.

How come you are so adamantly opposed to following the procedure as set out? CVC 22852 covers these hearings and this is the process by which agencies are expected to follow.

And CVC 14602.6(b) authorizes the impound hearing pursuant to CVC 22852.

Now, you can run into the lobby and wave your license around, or, you can attend a hearing and hopefully convince them to release your car. The choice really is yours.

 

[jddean123]

Just waving your license in the lobby is not going to do it. In most departments there is a person who is assigned to evaluate and approve these things - much like a judge or pro tem. Until THAT person approves and signs off on the release, it is not a done deal.

How come you are so adamantly opposed to following the procedure as set out? CVC 22852 covers these hearings and this is the process by which agencies are expected to follow.

And CVC 14602.6(b) authorizes the impound hearing pursuant to CVC 22852.

Now, you can run into the lobby and wave your license around, or, you can attend a hearing and hopefully convince them to release your car. The choice really is yours.

The reason I am being so hard on this is because it is an extra $200 for them to ask me to merely wait until Tuesday. I don't know about you, but I dont have an extra $200 laying around.

I don't understand what "decision" making or "evaluating" needs to be done. All they have to do is look up my license, which they have already done, to see that my license is now valid. If this is the only way that anyone can get a car out early, why can't they just tell me that instead of just telling me over and over again that I have to attend the hearing. The first officer I talked to completely agreed with me and didn't know why they were telling me that had to go to the hearing.

 

[CdwJava]

The reason I am being so hard on this is because it is an extra $200 for them to ask me to merely wait until Tuesday. I don't know about you, but I dont have an extra $200 laying around.

You have a legal right to due process. The section does not say you can flag down an officer on the street or a clerk in the corridor and tell them you have a license and retrieve their car - it doesn't work that way.

The law also says that you can have the clerk of the court sign off on an insurance fix-it ticket,but you still have to go to the proper office when they are open and provide the information to the proper clerk.

Many things that law allows or requires also adhere to a process.

If you feel that strongly, then you can sue them for the extra $200 later. You have the right to try, anyway.

I don't understand what "decision" making or "evaluating" needs to be done.

Someone with the authority vested by the agency needs to sign off on it. It is not something that a records' clerk is likely to be tasked with. In my agency it's me. No one else is authorized to sign off on these besides the Chief. On the rare occasion that I am unavailable, the Chief might assign another supervisor for the hearing, but that's rare.

All they have to do is look up my license, which they have already done, to see that my license is now valid. If this is the only way that anyone can get a car out early, why can't they just tell me that instead of just telling me over and over again that I have to attend the hearing. The first officer I talked to completely agreed with me and didn't know why they were telling me that had to go to the hearing.

The first officer probably does not quite grasp the concept. When I was pushing a patrol car around, I didn't always understand responsibility, liability, and the process all that much most the time, either. It might seem strange at times, but the process exists for a purpose and often it is to avoid chaos and provide for a fluid and efficient process. It might not always work that way, but that is the usual intent.

So, attend the hearing and then take them to small claims court later. Provided they are offering the hearing with 48 hours (two business days) of the request, they are almost certainly covered there, but you never know.

 

[jddean123]

So, attend the hearing and then take them to small claims court later. Provided they are offering the hearing with 48 hours (two business days) of the request, they are almost certainly covered there, but you never know.

Well.. Technically I requested the hearing Thursday...So they are going to be about 24 hours over.

 

[jddean123]

Well.. Technically I requested the hearing Thursday...So they are going to be about 24 hours over.

Since they are not going to make the 48 hour requirement, how shall I go about informing them of this mistake on their part? I'm assuming that furlough days do not count as holidays nor weekends. So, do they count as a business day?

 

[CdwJava]

Since they are not going to make the 48 hour requirement, how shall I go about informing them of this mistake on their part? I'm assuming that furlough days do not count as holidays nor weekends. So, do they count as a business day?

A furlough day is not a business day. Arguing with them about that is going to be pointless. If you feel that you have been wronged on this account, sue them for the added incurred cost after you get the car back.

It is the registered owner or their designated agent that is the party that can have the hearing. I presume you are the registered owner. If not, then everything changes a tad.

 

[jddean123]

Yes, I am the R/O.

Every officer that I have spoken to said that by going to the post-tow hearing I MIGHT get the car back. I have fulfilled the requirements as per the CVC. Why wouldn't I get the car back?

I have been debating asking my lawyer friend if she can go to the hearing as "my" lawyer. She specializes in non-profit organization law, but a lawyer is a lawyer.

 

[CdwJava]

Yes, I am the R/O.

Every officer that I have spoken to said that by going to the post-tow hearing I MIGHT get the car back. I have fulfilled the requirements as per the CVC. Why wouldn't I get the car back?

I do not know - I do not have all the details. But, it i a dangerous thing to say you WILL and then find out for some reason that you cannot. Those officers - and I - do not have all the information. There may be some reason they can refuse to turn the car over that I am not seeing. From what you write, they should give it back.

I have been debating asking my lawyer friend if she can go to the hearing as "my" lawyer. She specializes in non-profit organization law, but a lawyer is a lawyer.

But a lawyer that knows nothing about that particular area of law is no better than a layman. Plus, they do not have to even let the lawyer talk. You can bring your friend if you want, but it really adds no legal oomph to the issue - just a witness.

 

[jddean123]

I do not know - I do not have all the details. But, it i a dangerous thing to say you WILL and then find out for some reason that you cannot. Those officers - and I - do not have all the information. There may be some reason they can refuse to turn the car over that I am not seeing. From what you write, they should give it back.

Only thing I can think of that could cause any problems is if they consider my yellow emergency LED's a problem. But I Don't see how they can constitute not releasing my car due to the LED's.

 

[stairman]

getting your car back

you have run into what is called voters remorse.
You and others have voted for idiots to go to sacremento and spend the state into oblivian and you have been chosen to help keep the state ship afloat.I feel for you and they are screwing you for your lack of following the law.

 

[CdwJava]

you have run into what is called voters remorse.
You and others have voted for idiots to go to sacremento and spend the state into oblivian and you have been chosen to help keep the state ship afloat.I feel for you and they are screwing you for your lack of following the law.

A straw dog. The law authorizing thirty day impounds for suspended drivers (CVC 14602.6) has been around since 1995 (15 years). Plus, with some few exceptions, the impounding agency receives only a release fee on the impound which can range from $0 to around $100 depending on the agency. The remainder of any fees (perhaps about $1,800) goes to the tow company. The STATE receives none of this.

There is a hearing process in place pursuant to state law. It is a lack of process that tends to be a cause for action. Simply waving a valid license at anyone who looks your way doesn't do the trick.

 

[jddean123]

Only thing I can think of that could cause any problems is if they consider my yellow emergency LED's a problem. But I Don't see how they can constitute not releasing my car due to the LED's.

Never mind mister incompetent...Do you think those lights would be any cause to deny release?