• 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.

Unlawfully Impounded Vehicle- Way over my head but moving forward

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

CdwJava

Senior Member
The citation was dismissed in the interest of justice- The officers audio recording was very enlightening. I got the recording during Discovery, Yes, I am filing in federal court myself. I would rather try and fail then not try at all.
It was likely dismissed because the officer erred in issuing a citation for VC 16028(a) without also issuing you a cite for an underlying offense. Don't red too much into that dismissal.

Did you request a post-storage hearing? You say you inquired, but that you were referred back to the citing/impounding officer. While the agency should have probably referred you to the correct process by which you should request a hearing, they will likely respond that you never asked for the hearing so you lost out on an opportunity to challenge the validity of the impound through that course of action.

I'm curious, what are you citing as grounds for a 1983 action?
 


JaneyRose

Member
It was likely dismissed because the officer erred in issuing a citation for VC 16028(a) without also issuing you a cite for an underlying offense. Don't red too much into that dismissal.

Did you request a post-storage hearing? You say you inquired, but that you were referred back to the citing/impounding officer. While the agency should have probably referred you to the correct process by which you should request a hearing, they will likely respond that you never asked for the hearing so you lost out on an opportunity to challenge the validity of the impound through that course of action.

I'm curious, what are you citing as grounds for a 1983 action?
Fourth Amendment right to be free of unlawful searches and seizures and fourteenth Due Process. After the three conversations with personnel from Dispatch, Patrol and Records, I called the City Attorney then I filed a claim with the city. A third party adjuster called me then the claim was denied. I went to he Federal Pro Se clinic and was advised that I needed to get the citation for the Failure to provide insurance taken care of before I could file in Federal court. I did just that and went back to the clinic. They said to try submitting another claim. I wrote a revised version and delivered it to the city clerk on January 3. The issue was the Dealers Notice of Sale document. On the officers audio recording, an intern at the scene is reading the CVC Section 4456 to the officer and the officer responds "so she is right" , a reference to the 90 days or until purchaser receives the new Reg. card a nd plates from the DMV-whichever comes first. On the recording, the officer states "she is right" then says to the intern "well it says until the purchaser gets plates from the DMV, she has plates on the truck so the temp Reg is no longer valid. The plates on the truck were old plates and he knew or should have known that they were not the plates I was waiting for. There is more that was revealed on the recording but I will not post it. It s ugly and I wish it hadn't happened. I am afraid and overwhelmed but stuck with this...……………………...
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Okay, I assumed that might be what you were using as the cause, but sometimes people focus on the wrong thing. In this case, the cause for the stop is not the issue, but the impound of the car seems to be weak, at best. But, the fact that you failed to utilize all the legal avenues available to you early on MAY hurt you. You could have contested the impound in the post-storage hearing (VC 22852), but you did not. Your claim does not appear to be resolved, yet, so that may also cause a problem - and that may be the easier path to take if you can still file a lawsuit.

What is the value of the loss? (i.e. how much was the vehicle worth?)

An "intern"? Who was this "intern"? A student intern with the PD?
 

JaneyRose

Member
Okay, I assumed that might be what you were using as the cause, but sometimes people focus on the wrong thing. In this case, the cause for the stop is not the issue, but the impound of the car seems to be weak, at best. But, the fact that you failed to utilize all the legal avenues available to you early on MAY hurt you. You could have contested the impound in the post-storage hearing (VC 22852), but you did not. Your claim does not appear to be resolved, yet, so that may also cause a problem - and that may be the easier path to take if you can still file a lawsuit.

What is the value of the loss? (i.e. how much was the vehicle worth?)

An "intern"? Who was this "intern"? A student intern with the PD?
There were actually two interns on scene but only one is shown on the Dispatch created incident. Yes, they both were wearing the white intern shirts with FVPD patches on them. The recording is ludicrous. If you have the time, I would love to get a non-bias opinion of the recording and it would just be a friendly opinion and I would not quote anything you said. I am not an attorney. I am just somebody who fell head first into a mess and I have no choice but to handle it the best I can. What else can I do? Run away? roll over and submit? ignore an injustice? I didn't ask to join this party but since I was dragged into it, I may as well give it my best shot. Would you like to hear the tape?
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
There were actually two interns on scene but only one is shown on the Dispatch created incident. Yes, they both were wearing the white intern shirts with FVPD patches on them. The recording is ludicrous. If you have the time, I would love to get a non-bias opinion of the recording and it would just be a friendly opinion and I would not quote anything you said. I am not an attorney. I am just somebody who fell head first into a mess and I have no choice but to handle it the best I can. What else can I do? Run away? roll over and submit? ignore an injustice? I didn't ask to join this party but since I was dragged into it, I may as well give it my best shot. Would you like to hear the tape?
I'm curious about the recording, sure.

Though, I am questioning whether this might rise to the level of a 1983 action as a result of seizing your property. In the cases I have seen and been privy to, they often key on due process violations and if you have not availed yourself of all the options available to you (such as he post storage hearing) you may diminish your chances of success. Filing a case in Federal Court is a serious matter. It will take a great deal of research and work, may well take a few years to resolve - if it manages to move forward at all, and may be an exercise in frustration as well as futility.

My take, based upon what you have written, is that the impound pursuant to VC 22651(o) was improper. Had you obtained a post storage hearing pursuant to VC 22852 it is likely that your car would have been returned to you and your costs refunded. At least, had I been conducting the hearing (and that was one of my assignments for more than a dozen years) you would have gotten the car released and any costs directly related to the impound refunded. The citation was handled properly as it was dismissed - likely because VC 16028(a) cannot be cited without another offense. If this officer truly was a "Traffic" sergeant, then he should have known that.

If you still have an active claim with the city, you may want to consult a civil attorney and see as to the possibility of a civil suit for your losses. A 1983 action may be much harder to pursue and will require that you possess a great deal of knowledge not only on court procedure but on the law. I have heard that the difference between dealing pro se in the Superior Court and pro se Federal Court is like night and day. If there might be an alternative, I would suggest you look into it.
 

JaneyRose

Member
I'm curious about the recording, sure.

Though, I am questioning whether this might rise to the level of a 1983 action as a result of seizing your property. In the cases I have seen and been privy to, they often key on due process violations and if you have not availed yourself of all the options available to you (such as he post storage hearing) you may diminish your chances of success. Filing a case in Federal Court is a serious matter. It will take a great deal of research and work, may well take a few years to resolve - if it manages to move forward at all, and may be an exercise in frustration as well as futility.

My take, based upon what you have written, is that the impound pursuant to VC 22651(o) was improper. Had you obtained a post storage hearing pursuant to VC 22852 it is likely that your car would have been returned to you and your costs refunded. At least, had I been conducting the hearing (and that was one of my assignments for more than a dozen years) you would have gotten the car released and any costs directly related to the impound refunded. The citation was handled properly as it was dismissed - likely because VC 16028(a) cannot be cited without another offense. If this officer truly was a "Traffic" sergeant, then he should have known that.

If you still have an active claim with the city, you may want to consult a civil attorney and see as to the possibility of a civil suit for your losses. A 1983 action may be much harder to pursue and will require that you possess a great deal of knowledge not only on court procedure but on the law. I have heard that the difference between dealing pro se in the Superior Court and pro se Federal Court is like night and day. If there might be an alternative, I would suggest you look into it.
I am just looking for a non-bias "take" on the recording and your opinion will not be dragged into this. I am way too close to the matter and am afraid that I am reading into it, that what I want it to portray and I need to check myself so I do not look like a complete idiot (I like to stop at 75% idiot when possible). My E-mail address is [removed]. If you will send me a an E-mail address for you, I can send the audio recording. Again, this will remain a friendly conversation and I will never quote or involve you. I do not have any family and my friends think I am crazy to pursue this. Too many people do not want to be the one to make an effort but then complain about things. I feel that I need to at least earn my right to complain. Thank you for taking an interest and if you think I am conjuring up something that doesn't exist, I will respect your opinion and be grateful to you for saving me from embarrassment.
 

whowetalkinbout

Junior Member
In order to sue, the OP would need to have filed a claim within 6 months of the incident. I don't see any indication that s/he did so, therefor, s/he is barred from filing suit.
I'm curious about the recording, sure.

Though, I am questioning whether this might rise to the level of a 1983 action as a result of seizing your property. In the cases I have seen and been privy to, they often key on due process violations and if you have not availed yourself of all the options available to you (such as he post storage hearing) you may diminish your chances of success. Filing a case in Federal Court is a serious matter. It will take a great deal of research and work, may well take a few years to resolve - if it manages to move forward at all, and may be an exercise in frustration as well as futility.

My take, based upon what you have written, is that the impound pursuant to VC 22651(o) was improper. Had you obtained a post storage hearing pursuant to VC 22852 it is likely that your car would have been returned to you and your costs refunded. At least, had I been conducting the hearing (and that was one of my assignments for more than a dozen years) you would have gotten the car released and any costs directly related to the impound refunded. The citation was handled properly as it was dismissed - likely because VC 16028(a) cannot be cited without another offense. If this officer truly was a "Traffic" sergeant, then he should have known that.

If you still have an active claim with the city, you may want to consult a civil attorney and see as to the possibility of a civil suit for your losses. A 1983 action may be much harder to pursue and will require that you possess a great deal of knowledge not only on court procedure but on the law. I have heard that the difference between dealing pro se in the Superior Court and pro se Federal Court is like night and day. If there might be an alternative, I would suggest you look into it.
that was a very well said piece of advice.
 

JaneyRose

Member
that was a very well said piece of advice.
I'm curious about the recording, sure.

Though, I am questioning whether this might rise to the level of a 1983 action as a result of seizing your property. In the cases I have seen and been privy to, they often key on due process violations and if you have not availed yourself of all the options available to you (such as he post storage hearing) you may diminish your chances of success. Filing a case in Federal Court is a serious matter. It will take a great deal of research and work, may well take a few years to resolve - if it manages to move forward at all, and may be an exercise in frustration as well as futility.

My take, based upon what you have written, is that the impound pursuant to VC 22651(o) was improper. Had you obtained a post storage hearing pursuant to VC 22852 it is likely that your car would have been returned to you and your costs refunded. At least, had I been conducting the hearing (and that was one of my assignments for more than a dozen years) you would have gotten the car released and any costs directly related to the impound refunded. The citation was handled properly as it was dismissed - likely because VC 16028(a) cannot be cited without another offense. If this officer truly was a "Traffic" sergeant, then he should have known that.

If you still have an active claim with the city, you may want to consult a civil attorney and see as to the possibility of a civil suit for your losses. A 1983 action may be much harder to pursue and will require that you possess a great deal of knowledge not only on court procedure but on the law. I have heard that the difference between dealing pro se in the Superior Court and pro se Federal Court is like night and day. If there might be an alternative, I would suggest you look into it.
I filed a claim with the City within a week of the incident. Prior to filing the claim, I went to the Police Department three different times and requested to speak to a Lt. or a watch commander. Each time, I spoke with somebody in a different department (dispatch, desk officer and records at the front counter). Each time I was told the exact same thing, that I could only discuss the matter with the officer who had the vehicle impounded. I do not consider the impounding officer to be an "impartial tribunal or decision maker". I then filed the claim with the city. I appeared on the citation for "No Proof of Financial Responsibility" and requested a hearing. The Judge thought I was stupid as it was a correctible citation. I appeared at the hearing and asked the Judge for a continuance as I had just received the officers recording a couple days prior to the hearing. This Judge too thought I was an idiot for going to trial on a "fix-it-ticket". When I explained that my vehicle had been impounded, she immediately looked on her computer screen to see if she had missed that detail but as the citation was not written for the supposed "Expired Registration", she was unaware of the impound. I was granted a continuance and filed a Motion to Suppress the Evidence based on the unlawful traffic stop. The citation ended up being "dismissed in the interest of justice".
The officers reasonable suspicion was based on his unreasonable mistake of law. My vehicle had not been illegally parked prior to me entering the street. I had a valid temporary registration in the form of a Dealers Notice of Sale that was properly displayed on the lower passenger side of my vehicles windshield. CVC section 4456 defines the legality of the temporary registration and states the temporary registration is valid for 90 days from the date of purchase or until the PURCHASER receives plates and registration from the DMV. I had purchased the vehicle on April 28 2018. The vehicle was impounded for expired registration on June 18, 2018. The officer said that the temporary registration was no valid because my vehicle had license plates on it. he plates came back to he previous owner and it was obvious that those were not the plates that I, as the purchaser would be receiving from the DMV. That was the officers mistake of fact in misinterpreting CVC Section 4456.
I bought a vehicle. The vehicle was insured. I was displaying the temporary registration properly. I purchased the vehicle from a licensed California used car dealer. I have a valid California Drivers license and have had one since 1979. I have never had a ticket or an at fault accident. I have never been arrested and have never been on probation or parole. I was taking boxes of books to donate to the City's bookstore at 2:30 in the afternoon. I did not break any laws or violate any vehicle codes. My vehicle was impounded and I was detained for 54 minutes. If I was to drop this matter because it may be a little tough to take it to court, I would be undermining the Constitution of the United States and turning my back on the very foundation of my country's justice system. That would be a lot harder to live with then a battle in court. I was denied my right to Due Process of the law. My vehicle was unlawfully taken with absolutely no legal justification at all. I understand that the court system is complicated and a lot happens behind the scene but I am not a lawyer and I can only go by what the law and the constitution says. A traffic stop is considered a detention and is a violation of my Fourth Amendment right to be free of unlawful searches and seizures unless the officer can articulate reasonable suspicion of me having broken a law or about to break a law. I did not have any contraband in my vehicle, I had a valid license and a spotless 39 year driving record and absolutely no criminal history. Per the DMV, my vehicle was legal to operate on the street with the temporary registration. I was denied my Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process of the law when the Police Department insisted the only person I could redress my grievance with was the impounding officer. I filed a claim with the city, I appeared in court three times and had the citation dismissed then following the advice of the staff at the Federal pro se clinic, I filed the claim again. I did not receive a response from the city and it has been over about 75 days since I hand delivered the claim to the City Clerk. SO...……..should I just allow this blatant disregard for my civil rights to go un-checked????
 
Sponsored Ad

Top