Posted on 09/20/2005 11:15:10 AM PDT by BurbankKarl
A bill sitting on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk could exempt illegal immigrants and unlicensed teenagers from vehicle-impound laws that apply to other drivers who are arrested for driving with suspended and revoked licenses.
The bill requires the police to return vehicles to their registered owners who present a valid registration and driver's license. So if police stop a joyriding teenager or an illegal immigrant who is borrowing a friend's car, they cannot impound the vehicle if the owner shows up with a valid license, as they can under current law.
Assemblyman Alberto Torrico, D-Fremont, said his bill was not aimed at illegal immigrants, but at families where an unlicensed teen might "borrow" the family car and then get stopped by police, causing the vehicle to be impounded for 30 days.
"The bill is intended to address situations where basically the licensed owner is unfairly punished because of the actions of someone else, perhaps a minor child in the family, someone who steals a car or takes it for a joy ride," said Sam Delson, a Torrico aide. "The licensed owner under current law faces a severe penalty."
Schwarzenegger has not yet taken a position on the bill.
But opponents said vehicle owners should be held responsible for how the vehicle is used.
"I don't believe we should be softening the penalties against those who are driving without a license in the state of California," said Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, who voted against the bill.
"Potentially many of those driving without a license are probably illegal immigrants.
I do not want to soften the law on that."
Under current law, police can seize and impound a vehicle for 30 days if the driver does not have a license, or has a suspended or revoked license.
Current law also allows illegal immigrants to own, register and insure vehicles, but does not allow them to have valid California driver's licenses, according to state officials.
A bill sent this month to the governor, SB 60, by Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, would allow undocumented immigrants to obtain licenses, but Schwarzenegger is expected to veto it.
Another Cedillo bill that is still pending in the Legislature would specifically exempt illegal immigrants from the impound requirements, without needing the vehicle's owner to present a valid license. A number of law enforcement agencies have written to ask Schwarzenegger to veto the Torrico bill, including California Highway Patrol Commissioner M.L. Brown, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca; the San Fernando Valley Traffic Advisory Council; and San Fernando Police Chief Anthony Alba.
Our Palestinian problem.
Of course not. That's why the phrase "illegal immigrant" is in the bill.
How stupid do they think we are?
Laws are for White people!!!!!! F this s.
I like "BurbankKarl's law " would solve an awful lot of problems, we might even see a break on our insurance premium.
Hope you're happy ":^)
Agree with your 'law' but what if the vehicle is stolen? It should be sold at auction?
the guy is partially right. illegal immigrants shouldn't be held to the same laws normal citizens are. unfortunately the guy hasn't realized that the law they SHOULD be held to is the one that says he's not to be here in the first place, and needs to be kicked out.
Yes. I miss some people, but that's all. I hope you're still busy?
Typical included is a $75/day (or more) impound fee.
It amounts to car confiscation for the old POS cars these people typically drive. Does'nt bother the illegals much. The tow fee was more then their cars are usually worth. They're replacing the car with another '85 chevette the next day.
As to the parents whos kids are joy riding. I'd give em a choice: Charge your little darling with car theft and get the car back OR lose the car for 30 days and pay the extortion.
If they hurt or kill someone and you know they're driving your car, the police should arrest you.
It seems to make sense to me. If the driver is not the owner, the vehicle shouldn't be impounded. That only punishes the owner and does not punish the driver. The impounding should be a punishment for an owner-driver. Non-owner drivers need to be arrested for driving without a liscence (or insurance) and should serve an appropriate term in jail. For example, what if the vehicle in question was a rental and driven by someone who didn't rent it? Should the car be taken from the rental company as punishment without wrongdoing?
Another whatda-f? Law!~}
Nonsense.
The statists love their confiscation laws
If a gun owner is subject to penalties for leaving a firearm where a kid can get it, why not the same for his car?
Keys and telephones!
Keys are to lock your car from unauthorized use and telephones are for calling the police to report it stolen.
If you are too dumb, lazy or lax to secure the keys and too liberal with your children to call the cops on them if they steal (or use your car without permission), or worse yet, not report your car stolen...YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE.
Wow, that's deep.
amazing isn't it.
That needs to be repeated!
There are many on this forum who complain about Democrat views on illegal immigration. The Republicans are just as bad. It's a race to see who can give the most entitlements to lawbreakers.
Existing law allows 30-day impounds when an unlicensed driver is found driving a car, whether it belongs to him or not; there are probably exceptions for stolen cars and perhaps some others. This is a strong disincentive for people to lend their cars to people without drivers licenses.
This proposed law exempts cars from impounding when they're driven by unlicensed drivers who happen to be either illegal aliens or younger teenagers. Cars driven by all other unlicensed drivers would still be subject to impounding. Why should laws be relaxed for only two categories of unlicensed drivers, especially when those people are the least likely to have ever been licensed to drive and are probably more dangerous than former drunk drivers who are no longer inebriated?
A logical consequence of this proposed law, if chaptered, would be people with drivers licenses lending cars (long term) to illegal aliens while retaining the registration so the cars could never be impounded. This would lead unnecessarily/unfairly to higher insurance rates for everybody else.
For example, what if the vehicle in question was a rental and driven by someone who didn't rent it? Should the car be taken from the rental company as punishment without wrongdoing?
Sure, why not (unless the law has special exemptions)? It's not really "punishment" for the rental company. The person who rented the car showed his own license and signed an agreement that nobody else would drive. If the renter fails to return the car on time, he'll have to pay for the extended rental, which could easily be over $1000 for the 30-day impound period. Or, the rental agency can claim the car is stolen, but the renter might not prefer the higher penalties.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.