In a carefully orchestrated escalation against laws prohibiting driving without a license, a group of prominent civil rights attorneys filed a lawsuit in Superior Court today seeking to strike down as unconstitutional impounding cars for 30 days under most circumstances. (impound-lawsuit)
The move follows by 12 months, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck’s decision to give drivers without licenses a free pass at DUI checkpoints if they aren’t drunk, a move that led to state legislation achieving the same goal.
Despite ample evidence of the threat to public safety, Beck, with Police Commission approval, now has issued a Special Order barring LAPD officers from seizing vehicles of drivers who never had a valid California license — if they can produce some form of identification, car registration and insurance.
The goal is to end long-standing policies of impounding the cars of illegal immigrants for 30 days as a deterrent to them driving without licenses, credible ID and valid insurance.
Beck’s action have generated considerable support in many circles — and sharp critiicism in others — even as he acknowledges the right solution is to allow illegal immigrants to take driving tests and get licenses.
What the lawsuit attacks is the constitutionality of impounding cars of anyone who has ever had a driver license anywhere at any time, even in other states or foreign countries. It also questions impounding cars of registered owners who allow unlicensed drivers to use their cars — a common practice intended to escape the consequences of driving an unregistered car.
A judge in Sonoma County recently rejected the argument that once having a license in a foreign country applies to residents of California whether or not they are legally in the U.S.
“A resident of California cannot legally drive while holding just a foreign license,” he wrote. “Whether or not a resident driver had an active or expired foreign license is irrelevant in this context.”
As briefly recounted in the blog, the Somona County decision is irrelevant to the Petition which was filed in Los Angeles. The quoted statement appears false on is face, but since it is irrelevant for our purposes, I won’t address it.
Many, many congratulations to Ron Kaye for providing a link to the actual Petition so that people can read it for themselves. Without that type of integrity in the media, honest discussions are impossible.
The lawsuit presents a reasonable and logical challenge to the way the statues are being enforced, (although I thought Chief Beck was not doing the things alleged.)
The lawsuit is not specifically designed to assist illegal aliens. If it had been, it would have raised the Defense of Impossibility in that one law refuses to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens who can pass a driver’s test and then requires those same people to have drivers licenses or have cars which they drive impounded. Ironically, people who scream the most about the need to follow the law completely disregard the law when it does not meet their liking. The Defense of Impossibility is a law. However, this lawsuit does not undertake any issue which is unique to illegal aliens, and it is an unfair characterization to imply that it does.
The lawsuit takes the statutes at their plain meaning which is how the law requires us to interpret regular words unles they have been given a unique or special legally meaning. That is the law. Wwhether the law thwarts someone’s campaign of anti-bigotry, it is still the law.
In our judicial system, the defendants will file their Answer, and hopefully Ron Kaye will again provide a link. Thereafter, there will be briefs pro and con, which also should be published here.
One thing which people need to remember. When a Constitution is the supreme law of the land (I am speaking about the USA and California), legislation may not be contrary to the Constitution. If you do not like that, then you do not like the law.
When the legislature passes a statute, its enforcement may not violate the Constitution and the enforcement may not stray into areas beyond the scope of the statute. That is the law. If you do not like it, your argument is with the law.
When there is a disagreement about the constitutionality of a statute or the proper scope of enforcement, those disputes are brought to the courts and the courts render the final decision. That again is the law, and if you do not like the constitutional framework of our society, then you’ve got a problem.
I looked at the newspaper article about Somona County. It did not say the final result, but only dicussed the judge’s tentative ruling.
If the judge did say that when the statute said that “driver’s license” it obviously meant a “California driver license,” his tentative highly suspect. Whether he had statutory aouthority for his interpretation is not provided, but if the Legislature had wanted to have the words drivers license to mean only “California drivers license,” they could have either added the word California to the statute or somewhere had the code define “drivers license” to mean only California driver’s license.
There is a rule that a statute is not to be given an absurd meaning. Under the judge’s restrictive interpretation of the statute, every single out-of-state tourist is driving illegally and thousands of Hertz, Avis, and Enterprise Rent a Cars may be impounded for 30 days.
The judge’s tenative ruling also means that as soon as people from Las Vegas enter California, their car may be impounded if they have only a Nevada drivers licenses.
Suppose Nevada wants to retailiate and stop and impound all California cars that entered Nevada.
I believe that the judge’s interpretation leads to absurd results, and if he did not change his tentative ruling, he would be over-turned on appeal.
Ok last comment
I came across a longer article. Apparently at the hearing, the judge may have limited his ruling to California residents who had out of state licenses. That oblivates much of the absurdity of a blanket statement that anyone who drives without a California drivers license may have his/her car impounded for 30 days.
What makes our situation different from the city of Bell? Were they in worst conditions than us? What propel them to take the steps they took? I believe the time to go ahead is exactly the time when we decide to take the first step. No time is ever perfect in the mind, but in the action.
Laws have a purpose, sometimes we do not like them, but they are there for our own personal protection. They are not there to satisfy our wants but to protect us from each other, and allows to live in a better environment. They are not there to punish, but as consequences of our actions.
The behavior of all these politicians and their cohorts are undermining our way of life. This city is turning into a lawless place, everyone can break the law and do whatever they want and get away with it. Especially if they are illegally here. Time to stand up and reclaim our city!!!!!
I came here from Mexico and I had to follow the law to come here legally. I needed to say that so people do not start claiming that I’m a racist. We all have to follow the law if we want to live in peace.
If the civil rights attorneys who by the way are paid as non profits by our tax dollars, WIN then can we, THE LEGAL RESIDENTS of Los Angeles file a class action lawsuit because this would be discrimatory against those who abide by our laws? I’m looking at how horribly wrong and backwards our city has become since the gangster Mayor and Beck have been in office. The legal residents have become the silent voice and the law breakers, illegal immigrants have people coming to their aide. No other country in the World would allow foreigners to disrespect and then change laws to help them. For anyone to think the illegals are helpless, poor, and have hardships is a clown. They have learned how to work the system. They are receiving more then our Veterans who have come back from fighting a WAR for our Country. They are getting more then homeless single mothers sleeping in their cars with their children, they are getting more then the 11% unemployed Americans in this City.