Car Impoundment & Checkpoint Toolkit: Section 10

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 41 | Comments: 0 | Views: 374
of 34
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content






P.O. Box 87131
San Diego, CA 92138-7131
T/ 619-232-2121
F/ 619-232-0036


December 18, 2009

Jeffrey R. Epp, Esq.
City Attorney
City of Escondido
201 North Broadway
Escondido, CA 92025-2798

Re: Driver’s License Checkpoints

Dear Mr. Epp:

We are writing to address the legality of checkpoints to “detect drivers who are not lawfully
licensed to operate a motor vehicle in the State of California.” News Release, Lt. Mike Laurie of
Escondido Police Department, Driver’s License Checkpoint Scheduled (Dec. 13, 2009),
available at http://www.ci.escondido.ca.us/POLICE/news/releases/12-13-09.pdf. It has come to
our attention that driver’s license checkpoints violate California law. We respectfully request
that the City suspend the operation of such checkpoints as soon as possible.

The Escondido police chief is on record stating that the sole reason for the checkpoints is to
check driver’s licenses. Vehicle Code section 14607.6(b) prohibits officers from stopping a
vehicle “for the sole reason of determining whether the driver is properly licensed.” Similarly,
Vehicle Code section 12801.5(e) prohibits officers from detaining or arresting a person “solely
on the belief that the person is an unlicensed driver, unless the officer has reasonable cause to
believe the person driving is under the age of 16 years.” See Bingham v. City of Manhattan
Beach, 341 F.3d 939, 950 (9th Cir. 2003) (section 12801.5(e) “prohibits arresting someone solely
for being an unlicensed driver”).

The Attorney General recently concluded that driver’s license checkpoints violate state law. In a
March 2009 investigation, the Attorney General concluded that the City of Maywood had
engaged in a pattern or practice of conducting unlawful vehicle stops. See IN THE MATTER OF
THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CITY OF MAYWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT, available at
http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1722_maywoodreport.pdf. In particular, the
Attorney General observed:

[T]he Department’s stopping of vehicles at fixed checkpoints…raises a serious question
as to whether the Department’s checkpoint program violated state statutory law.
Generally, as a matter of constitutional law, checkpoints to identify unlicensed or drunk
drivers are not unlawful if executed properly…. However, checkpoints aimed solely to

City Attorney Jeffrey R. Epp
December 18, 2009
Page Two


identify unlicensed drivers violate Vehicle Code section 14607.6. That section provides
that an officer “shall not stop a vehicle for the sole reason of determining whether the
driver is properly licensed.” (Veh. Code, § 14607.6 subd. (b).) While the Department
maintained that the checkpoints were instituted, at least in part, as sobriety checkpoints,
the evidence does not support that was the Department’s motive or purpose for the
checkpoints. Rather, circumstantial evidence supports the conclusion that the
checkpoints were conducted to identify drivers who were operating vehicles without
valid California driver’s licenses.

Id. at 14 n.9 (emphasis added).

In addition, the driver’s license checkpoints in Escondido have strained the Police Department’s
relationship with community members and created a public safety concern in that residents will
be less likely to come forward to report crimes or contact the police when in need of assistance.

We understand the Police Department has also conducted sobriety checkpoints. While existing
law may permit sobriety checkpoints for the purpose of detecting persons driving under the
influence of intoxicants, such checkpoints should not be used as a cover for continuing to
conduct unlawful driver’s license checkpoints. To the extent that the Police Department intends
to continue operating sobriety checkpoints, officers should not request or demand licenses at
such checkpoints unless there are reasonable grounds to believe a driver is impaired.

For these reasons, we ask that the City of Escondido stop the use of driver’s license checkpoints.
As always, we hope that this matter may be resolved without litigation, but we are prepared to
pursue litigation if necessary. We look forward to your response in this matter.

Sincerely,




David Blair-Loy Victor Torres
Legal Director Spokesperson
ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties el Grupo









■ ■ ■ ■


































































— —





































— —




































— —
































— —








































— —










































— —





































— —








































— —






































— —






































— —









































— —


































— —








































— —







































— —








































— —









































— —






























Clarity in California DUI Checkpoints
AB 1389 (Allen)


BACKGROUND

DUI checkpoints in California are not getting
drunk drivers off the road.

Local police often use traffic checkpoints to stop
and identify drunk drivers who threaten the safety
of our roads and highways. In recent years,
however, these checkpoints have netted fewer
drunk drivers, and instead are targeting more
unlicensed drivers whose cars are frequently
impounded. In many cities throughout California,
local police and sheriff agencies are using
checkpoints to tow as many as 20 vehicles of
unlicensed drivers for each DUI arrest made,
according to a 2010 report by the Investigative
Reporting Program at UC Berkeley.
1


In 2009, police impounded more than 24,000
vehicles at checkpoints. That number is roughly
seven times higher than the 3,200 drunk driving
arrests at roadway operations. The percentage of
vehicle seizures in these roadway operations has
increased 53% statewide compared to 2007.

DUI checkpoints have an unfair and
disproportionate impact in low-income
communities

Instead of serving as a deterrence for DUI
offenders, these sobriety checkpoints are set up in
areas that do not have a high correlation of DUI
arrests or accidents, and target certain
neighborhoods or locations where high populations
of low-income families or other low-income
communities. In one Northern California
community that is predominantly Latino, DUI
checkpoints have resulted in 121 impounded cars
compared to just 4 DUI arrests in a 2-year period.


1
Ryan Gabrielson, “Car seizures at DUI checkpoints prove profitable for cities, raise
legal questions,” California Watch (Berkeley, CA: 2010), available at:
http://californiawatch.org/public-safety/car-seizures-dui-checkpoints-prove-
profitable-cities-raise-legal-questions (see the map for the data); See also “California
Checkpoints Catch Unlicensed Drivers,” New York Times (February 13, 2010),
available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/us/14sfcheck.html.

Ingersoll vs. Palmer

In its 1987 decision Ingersoll v. Palmer, 43 Cal.3d
1321 (1987), the California Supreme Court
addressed the issue of checkpoints directly by
clearly establishing requirements on how, when,
and where law enforcement agencies can set up
sobriety checkpoints that comply with both the
Federal and State constitution and serve the
underlying goal of sobriety checkpoints which is to
deter drunk driving.

Why AB 1389 is needed?

Despite clear existing case law, some law
enforcement agencies continue to conduct
checkpoints in areas and in a manner that does not
effectively deter drunk driving and instead erodes
community trust in law enforcement efforts. Harsh
policies at police checkpoints are resulting in
severe financial hardship, exposure to dangerous
situations and fear of reporting crime or
cooperating with police among low-income
communities. This undermines public safety for
everyone.

With the limited set of resources that law
enforcement agencies have, community oriented
policing efforts are critical to combat all types of
crime and to ensure that community members feel
safe coming forward to serve as witnesses or report
crimes.

Unfortunately, recent reports throughout the state
indicate that law enforcement agencies often
conducts checkpoints in broad daylight or outside
of churches during mass, which demonstrates the
need for statewide uniformity and the need for
specific guidelines to make the checkpoints as
effective as possible in order to enhance public
safety for all Californians.

Even when there are safe and reasonable
alternatives, authorities are also impounding cars of
unlicensed drivers at checkpoints and leaving
people on the street, in some cases with small
children, to find their way home.
AB 1389 will enhance community-policing efforts
on the ground by providing both law enforcement
agencies and the communities they serve clear
guidance and expectations on checkpoints.

AB 1389 adds existing state and federal case
law governing checkpoints to the California
Vehicle Code

This bill amends and adds a new section into the
California Vehicle Code detailing compliance by
law enforcement agencies to the criteria set forth
in the Ingersoll decision on sobriety checkpoints.
This codification will settle confusion for local law
enforcement agencies on sobriety checkpoints and
vehicle tows during checkpoint stops while
protecting the civil rights of all drivers.

The California Highway Patrol, one of the most
visible arms of law enforcement in our state,
already codifies the Ingersoll factors on
checkpoints, which is what this bill seeks to
accomplish.

AB 1389 would specifically codify the factors
found in Ingersoll and the California Highway
Patrol field manual on checkpoints by providing
standards on the time and location of
checkpoints, the notice requirements that law
enforcement agencies must provide to
community members prior to the checkpoint,
clear and visible signs, and the sufficient staff
and lighting necessary to conduct the checkpoint
in a manner that enhances public safety.





In addition, the bill codifies the 9
th
Circuit Court
of Appeals decision Miranda v. City of
Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2005), which
provides that a car that can be safely parked by a
licensed driver will not be impounded under the
“community caretaker provision.”
Overall, this legislation will improve safety,
while providing protection for low-income
communities and all drivers who are bearing the
costs of unclear, unsafe, and non-standard
policies regarding checkpoints, towing, and
vehicle impoundments.

SUPPORT
American Civil Liberties Union
California Immigrant Policy Center
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of
Los Angeles (CHIRLA)
Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund (MALDEF)
PICO California
Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education
Network (SIREN)

CONTACT
Erica Costa
Phone: (916)319-2007 ; fax: (916)319-2107
[email protected]

AB 1398 (Allen)
Clarity in CA DUI Checkpoints
April 2011

Review of AB 1389’s key provisions
• AB 1389 codifies existing state and federal case law governing checkpoints into
the California Vehicle Code.

• The bill will provide specific standards on the time and location of checkpoints,
notice requirements to communities prior to the checkpoint, signage and degree
of visibility of signs that must be posted, and staff and lighting requirements for
checkpoints that ensure public safety.

• In compliance with a recent court decision
1
, the bill will also codify existing law
regarding car seizures at sobriety checkpoints so that cars can be safely parked
as an alternative to impoundment.

Messages and Talking Points on the bill:

Message #1:

We need to get DUI checkpoints back on point-- keeping drunk drivers
off the road.

Local police often use traffic checkpoints to stop and identify drunk drivers who threaten
the safety of our roads and highways. In recent years, however, these checkpoints have
netted less drunk drivers and more unlicensed drivers whose cars are frequently
impounded.

• In 2009, police impounded more than 24,000 vehicles at checkpoints.
2

That number is roughly seven times higher than the 3,200 drunk-driving
arrests at roadway operations.
• The percentage of vehicle seizures in these roadway operations has
increased 53% statewide compared to 2007.
Message #2:

Traffic checkpoints are diverting precious resources from public safety
efforts like stopping drunk drivers.


1
Miranda v. City of Cornelius 29 F.3d858(9
th
Cir.2005)
2
“Sobriety Checkpoints Catch Unlicensed Drivers,” by Ryan Gabrielson, New York Times,
02/13/10 see article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/us/14sfcheck.html Please note
that the data used in this document is primarily from this investigative report.
As taxpayers, we want to know that local governments and authorities use funds
for what they were intended. Right now, traffic checkpoints that are supposed to
catch drunk drivers aren’t getting the job done. Instead of keeping drunks off the
road, these stops are lining the pockets of tow-truck companies and racking up
overtime for law enforcement personnel who are, more and more, targeting low
income communities as well as drivers based on the color of their skin or
language they speak. DUI checkpoints should target drunk drivers and protect
public safety.

• In one Northern California, predominantly Latino, community DUI
checkpoints resulted in 121 impounded cars compared to just 4 DUI
arrests over a two year period.
• In Riverside County in 2009, one police department averaged 38 officers
at each operation, six times more than federal guidelines say is
required.
• In Montebello in Southern California during 2009, officers failed to
conduct a single sobriety test at 3 of the city’s 5 roadway operations.


Message #3:

Harsh policies at police checkpoints are resulting in severe financial hardship,
exposure to dangerous situations and fear of reporting crime or cooperating
with police among immigrants in many communities. This undermines public
safety for everyone.

Even when there are safe and reasonable alternatives, authorities are
impounding cars of unlicensed drivers at checkpoints and leaving people on the
street, in some cases with small children, to find their way home. Meanwhile,
police do not typically seize or impound the vehicles of motorists arrested for
drunk driving. This means drunk drivers can retrieve their vehicles the next day.

• It can cost up to $2,500 to retrieve an impounded car, often more than
the value of the car itself.

• The $2500 fee to get a car out of impoundment is equal to about 15% of
an immigrant’s annual income.

• During 2009, impounds at checkpoints in California generated an
estimated $40 million in towing fees and police fines – revenue that
cities divide with towing firms.

For more information please contact Isabel Alegria, Communications Director, California
Immigrant Policy Center. Email at [email protected]



April __, 2011

By Fax: (916) 319-2107

The Honorable Bonnie Lowenthal
Chair, Assembly Committee on Transportation
1020 N Street, Room 112
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 94249-0054

The Honorable Michael Allen
1020 N Street, Room 5158
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 94249

RE: Support for AB 1389 (Allen) regarding DUI Checkpoints & Impounds

Dear Assemblymembers Lowenthal and Allen:

I write in strong support of AB 1389 by Assembly Member Michael Allen, which will clarify for
my department and others like it across the state what criteria and precautions must be in place to
ensure that our DUI checkpoints are effective for public safety, protect all drivers equally, and
uphold our constitution. I support driver checkpoints, but I also believe that the law must be
enforced equally. Lately, California’s checkpoints are no longer getting drunk drivers off the
road as they were intended; AB 1389 will help get checkpoints back on point.

As a law enforcement professional, I want strong tools to keep drunk drivers off the roads. The
grants administered by the Office of Traffic Safety are an important instrument that allow our
department to create safer streets. However, the grants program provides little oversight, putting
my department in the difficult situation of having to interpret complex constitutional standards
related to stops and seizures of vehicles at checkpoints. And in some communities, I have seen
checkpoints applied inconsistently or improperly. AB 1389 provides important and tested
improvements in the California Vehicle Code to improve checkpoint operation.

By codifying Ingersoll v. Palmer, 43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987), the law would how and where
checkpoints can be set up in a local jurisdiction, clarifying that they must operate after dark, in
areas with high likelihood of DUI’s, posted with advanced notice for motorists. Clear guidance
from the state will help my department ensure that its checkpoints are effective, fair, and do not
expose my department or our fine officers to liability. The Ingersoll language is already
included in the guidelines used by the California Highway Patrol and it is time to codify these
policies in the California Vehicle Code.

Checkpoints are a valuable tool for law enforcement and public safety – but they also have a
cost. Checkpoints require significant staff resources, interrupt free movement on the roads, and
subject random residents to potential search and questioning. In a free society, these tactics must
be weighed carefully against the benefits of safer streets, and should not be used lightly.



Yet community reports and data from California show that checkpoints are increasingly
conducted in immigrant communities, at times and places where drunk drivers are less likely to
pass through a checkpoint, diminishing any deterrent effect they are intended to have. I believe
that all drivers must be licensed, trained, and insured. But we know that some immigrants are
prohibited from receiving licenses in California, and these drivers should not be on the road. But
when checkpoints are illegally or unfairly operated, they expose residents to dangerous situations
and erode the trust with police among low-income communities. This undermines public safety
for everyone and set back our efforts to create safer streets for everyone.

The impact of this bill will provide protection for low-income communities and all drivers who
are bearing the costs of unclear, unsafe, and non-uniform policies regarding checkpoints, towing,
and vehicle impoundments. For these reasons, I support AB 1389 and urge your support in
committee.


Sincerely,

YOUR NAME

ORGANIZATION NAME


Cc: California Immigrant Policy Center
By Fax: (916) 448-6774



April __, 2011

By Fax: (916) 319-2107

The Honorable Bonnie Lowenthal
Chair, Assembly Committee on Transportation
1020 N Street, Room 112
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 94249-0054

The Honorable Michael Allen
1020 N Street, Room 5158
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 94249

RE: Support for AB 1389 (Allen) regarding DUI Checkpoints & Impounds

Dear Assemblymembers Lowenthal and Allen:

I write in strong support of AB 1389 by Assembly Member Michael Allen, which will clarify for
my department and others like it across the state what criteria and precautions must be in place to
ensure that our DUI checkpoints are effective for public safety, protect all drivers equally, and
uphold our constitution. I support driver checkpoints, but I also believe that the law must be
enforced equally. Lately, California’s checkpoints are no longer getting drunk drivers off the
road as they were intended; AB 1389 will help get checkpoints back on point.

As a law enforcement professional, I want strong tools to keep drunk drivers off the roads. The
grants administered by the Office of Traffic Safety are an important instrument that allow our
department to create safer streets. However, the grants program provides little oversight, putting
my department in the difficult situation of having to interpret complex constitutional standards
related to stops and seizures of vehicles at checkpoints. And in some communities, I have seen
checkpoints applied inconsistently or improperly. AB 1389 provides important and tested
improvements in the California Vehicle Code to improve checkpoint operation.

By codifying Ingersoll v. Palmer, 43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987), the law would how and where
checkpoints can be set up in a local jurisdiction, clarifying that they must operate after dark, in
areas with high likelihood of DUI’s, posted with advanced notice for motorists. Clear guidance
from the state will help my department ensure that its checkpoints are effective, fair, and do not
expose my department or our fine officers to liability. The Ingersoll language is already
included in the guidelines used by the California Highway Patrol and it is time to codify these
policies in the California Vehicle Code.

Checkpoints are a valuable tool for law enforcement and public safety – but they also have a
cost. Checkpoints require significant staff resources, interrupt free movement on the roads, and
subject random residents to potential search and questioning. In a free society, these tactics must
be weighed carefully against the benefits of safer streets, and should not be used lightly.



Yet community reports and data from California show that checkpoints are increasingly
conducted in immigrant communities, at times and places where drunk drivers are less likely to
pass through a checkpoint, diminishing any deterrent effect they are intended to have. I believe
that all drivers must be licensed, trained, and insured. But we know that some immigrants are
prohibited from receiving licenses in California, and these drivers should not be on the road. But
when checkpoints are illegally or unfairly operated, they expose residents to dangerous situations
and erode the trust with police among low-income communities. This undermines public safety
for everyone and set back our efforts to create safer streets for everyone.

The impact of this bill will provide protection for low-income communities and all drivers who
are bearing the costs of unclear, unsafe, and non-uniform policies regarding checkpoints, towing,
and vehicle impoundments. For these reasons, I support AB 1389 and urge your support in
committee.


Sincerely,

YOUR NAME

ORGANIZATION NAME


Cc: California Immigrant Policy Center
By Fax: (916) 448-6774

7/15/09 9:05 AM News & Alerts - California Dept. of Justice - Office of the Attorney General
Page 1 of 3 http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/print_release.php?id=1722
News Release
Brown Directs Maywood to Reform its Police
Department after Investigation Uncovers Gross
Misconduct
LOS ANGELES - Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today directed the Maywood City Council to reform its
police department in the wake of a 16-month investigation which exposed "gross misconduct and widespread
abuse."
Brown will immediately seek a stipulated court order to secure adoption of reforms and oversight by the Attorney
General's office.
"Over a period of five years, the Maywood Police Department violated the trust of the community it was
supposed to serve and protect," Attorney General Brown said. "This investigation has revealed gross misconduct
and widespread abuse including unlawful use of force against civilians. It is imperative that the city council take
immediate and concrete steps to rein in the department."
Brown today released a 30-page report that found that the City of Maywood Police Department routinely used
excessive force, did not obtain probable cause to justify arrests and searches, and operated without adequate
oversight by the Maywood City Council and the City's Chief Administrative Officer.
Investigators examined some 30,000 pages of documents from January 2002 through April 2007. Sixty-four
witness interviews were conducted with sworn officers, city council members, City of Maywood administrative
personnel, city residents, and civil rights attorneys.
The investigation was launched in response to a 2007 request by then-Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Núñez.
The investigation was headed up by Senior Assistant Attorney General, Louis Verdugo, who was assisted by
special agents from the Attorney General's office, and Joe Brann, former Hayward Police Chief and Director of
the COPS Office under President Clinton.
Over the course of the investigation, Brown's office has been in contact with the Los Angeles District Attorney.
The City Council has taken limited steps to reform the department, most notably by hiring a permanent Chief of
Police. Nevertheless, reform efforts are just beginning and many of the underlying structural causes have not
been remedied.
Brown has sole legal authority under California Civil Code 52.3 to ensure that police departments do not deprive
"any person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United
States or by the Constitution or laws of California."
Brown's investigation uncovered five major areas where the Department had violated the rights of community
members, identified ten factors that allowed these violations to develop, and offered a 12-point plan of reform.
Findings
Attorney General Brown's investigation found that:
- Maywood police officers routinely used excessive force, and police department management did little or nothing
April 28, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: (916) 324-5500
7/15/09 9:05 AM News & Alerts - California Dept. of Justice - Office of the Attorney General
Page 2 of 3 http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/print_release.php?id=1722
- Maywood police officers routinely used excessive force, and police department management did little or nothing
to stop these abuses. In September 2006, for instance, officers, tased, assaulted and beat a father and son in
front of their home after the son witnessed officers assaulting a man across the street. The son asked one of the
officers for his badge number. As he wrote it down, he was assaulted by the officer. Other officers joined in. The
young man was repeatedly shot with a Taser while he was handcuffed. At one point, the father yelled "what are
you doing to my son." The father was then assaulted by several officers. Both men were taken to the hospital for
medical treatment. They were charged with battery of a police officer, and resisting and obstructing an officer.
The charges were later dismissed.
- The lack of probable cause to justify arrests and searches and reasonable suspicion to detain members of the
public. A former Maywood police officer who was interviewed stated that officers routinely dispensed with
probable cause and reasonable suspicion requirements when dealing with members of the public. In fact, he was
told by his training officers that when he saw someone walking down the street he should stop them and "brace
them" (i.e., confront, aggressively question, and search); there was not any interest in establishing probable
cause. He also stated that it was common for officers to dispense with pat-down searches; instead, the officers
would put their hands into the pockets of the persons detained.
- Substantial evidence supporting allegations of sexual assault. In May 2008, the LA District Attorney charged a
Maywood Police Department officer with the sexual assault of three women. The assaults took place in 2006 and
2007 and occurred while the officer was on duty. The assaults all commenced with detentions for which there
was no legal cause or justification. In February 2009, following a preliminary hearing, the officer was held to
answer seventeen felony counts related to these assaults. The case remains pending.
- Evidence that the Department discouraged the public from filing complaints and refused to provide forms as
required by law.
- Evidence that the Department's policy of stopping drivers without probable cause and impounding their vehicles
violated the law. Federal law requires traffic stops to be initiated only if there is reasonable suspicion that a traffic
code is being violated. Maywood police officers often disregarded this requirement and initiated traffic stops
arbitrarily. Between February 1, 2002 and April 30, 2007, the Maywood Police Department towed and impounded
some 17,773 vehicles.
Causes
The Attorney General's investigation found that the abuse was caused by the following factors:
- Failure of Maywood City Council to ensure that its administrative staff provided strong management of the
police department.
- Failure, until quite recently, to recruit and retain a permanent Chief of Police who could competently run the
Police Department.
- A chain of command where officers were not held accountable by their sergeants for misconduct, and
sergeants were not held accountable for the lack of supervision.
- Poor hiring practices that failed to screen out unqualified candidates.
- The lack of clear written polices to ensure that policing was done in a manner consistent with the law and
contemporary police practices.
- Failure to ensure that officers consistently prepared and submitted use of force reports, and failure of
supervisors to review the reports that were submitted.
- Failure to provide adequate training.
- Failure to consistently accept and investigate citizen complaints.
- Failure to adopt an Early Intervention System to identify police officers that may be engaging in unlawful activity
or use of force.
7/15/09 9:05 AM News & Alerts - California Dept. of Justice - Office of the Attorney General
Page 3 of 3 http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/print_release.php?id=1722
Key Reforms
Brown called for the following key reforms:
The City Council must provide comprehensive and effective oversight of the Department; the City must retain an
outside police professional to submit an annual report regarding the state of the Department; the City Council
must provide for the recruitment and retention of highly qualified police chiefs to ensure that the reforms below
are carried out. These reforms include:
1. Adoption of hiring practices to ensure that only qualified candidates for sworn and civilian candidates are hired
and unsuitable applicants are screened out.
2. Updating written policies and procedures to ensure that police services are provided in a lawful manner.
3. Ensuring that following use-of-force incidents, reports be submitted and reviewed by management.
4. Providing adequate training on use of force, probable cause and reasonable suspicion, and use of Tasers.
5. Making sure that residents can lodge complaints and that those complaints be investigated.
6. Requiring that reports be clear and provide sufficient information to determine the probable cause for an arrest
or search, or reasonable suspicion for a detention or pat-down search.
7. Requiring the implementation of an Early Intervention System to track and monitor the activities and actions of
sworn personnel to deter inappropriate or unlawful conduct.
8. Retaining an independent outside expert to evaluate the department's management structure to ensure that
there is accountability up and down the chain of command.
9. Requiring the Department to purchase digital audio recorders, and ensuring that officers use them.
10. Requiring the installation of video cameras on all Department vehicles and in the lobby of the police station
and other areas of the station where officers interact with the public.
11. Changing the culture of the department and eliminating inappropriate sexual innuendo and harassment,
vulgarity, discourtesy to members of the public and between officers, and cultural, racial, and ethnic insensitivity.
12. Adopting a community-oriented policing philosophy.
The Attorney General's report is attached.
# # #
This hearing does not affect any related traffic citation or other criminal proceedings. The above hearing rights do not apply to the removal
of vehicles under the abandoned vehicle abatement program or vehicles removed from private property.
IRVINE POLICE DEPARTMENT
ONE CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, P.O. BOX 19575, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA, 92623-9575

REQUEST FOR VEHICLE IMPOUND HEARING

TODAY’S DATE: TIME: DR #:

NAME: DATE OF IMPOUND:

ADDRESS: VEH LIC #:

CITY: YEAR: MAKE:

PHONE: MODEL: STYLE:

PHONE: COLOR:

NOTICE OF HEARING RIGHTS
PURPOSE OF HEARING. As a vehicle owner or other person entitled to
possession of an impounded vehicle, you have the right to a hearing if you
believe your vehicle should not have been impounded. The purpose of the
hearing is to determine whether there was probable cause to impound the
vehicle, that is, whether the impounding officer was legally authorized to
remove your vehicle.
WHEN AND WHERE HEARING WILL BE HELD. The hearing will be held
within forty-eight (48) hours of the request, excluding weekends and
holidays. The hearing will consist of a meeting with a hearing officer at the
City of Irvine Police Department. You may present any witnesses or any
other evidence you believe will show that your vehicle should not have been
impounded. You must establish that you are the owner of the vehicle or that
you have some other right to possession of the vehicle.
ATTENDANCE BY IMPOUNDING OFFICER. At the time you request a
hearing, you may also request that the police officer who directed the
impound appear and answer your questions at the hearing
CONDUCT OF THE HEARING. If the Hearing Officer determines that your
vehicle should not have been impounded, it will be released to you without
charge, or you will be repaid after processing by mail for the charges you
paid to the Official Police Garage. If the Hearing Officer determines that the
vehicle was properly impounded, you must pay the impound and storage
charges to the Official Police Garage (if you have not done so already), or
the garage will have a lien placed on the vehicle.
HOW TO REQUEST A HEARING. Request must be done within ten (10)
business days of the date of mailing of the “Notice of Stored Vehicle”.
Failure to request a hearing within ten (10) days of the notice, or failure to
attend a scheduled hearing will end your right to a hearing.
(1) Telephone the Traffic Bureau at (949) 724-7036 during normal
business hours.
(2) Write or appear in person at the Irvine Police Department, One Civic
Center Plaza, Irvine, CA 92606-5208.
NOTE: Your right to a hearing within forty-eight (48) hours does not affect
your right to seek an immediate release of your vehicle, without waiting for a
hearing, by obtaining a written release from the Irvine Police Department
and paying the impound and storage charges of the Official Police Garage.
In this event, the Hearing Officer will determine whether you are entitled to a
refund of the charges.
RESULTS OF HEARING: A written reply will be provided by the Hearing
Officer. The time within which to file a judicial challenge of the Hearing
Officer's decision is governed by section 1094.6 of the California Code of
Civil Procedure.
ANSWER BOTH QUESTIONS AND SIGN:
1. REQUEST IMPOUND HEARING: Request vehicle be released
immediately, not challenging validity of impound. Officer who
impounded vehicle need not be present.
YES NO PHONE REQUEST
Signature:
2. REQUEST IMPOUND HEARING: Request cross-examination of
impounding officer to determine validity of vehicle storage.
Officer who impounded vehicle must be present.
YES NO
Signature:

DATE/TIME OF HEARING: ______________________________________
HEARING OFFICER:
IMPOUND UPHELD IMPOUND REVERSED IMPOUND VALID – RELEASED OTHER
COMMENTS:






Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close