Has Woodstock overstepped the
boundaries on fairness and integrity with its new Vehicle Impoundment
ordinance? This law, enacted quietly, without fanfare, without
announcement, without discussion and unanimously on January 17,
allows police to seize vehicles under certain circumstances.
Woodstock calls it “impoundment”. A
nearby community calls their similar ordinance a “seizure” law.
By now, you're familiar with my
rantings about Woodstock's ordinance and its $500.00 “ransom” to
get your vehicle back.
These laws aren't new in this country. What is new is
how municipalities are using them to raise money – to increase City
revenues.
An article three years ago by an
attorney questioned whether city towing practices are
unconstitutional. For example, in Oregon cities started to worry
about exposure to civil liabilities when their cops ordered tows. The
9th Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in (November 2005) and declared in
Miranda v City of Cornelius
that impoundment in that case was seizure without a warrant within
the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. That impoundment did not fit
within the “community caretaking doctrine.”
That
doctrine basically says that, generally, if the vehicle isn't
obstructing traffic and won't be at unnecessary risk of harm, it can
be left right where it is, when the driver is taken into custody.
And, if someone licensed is available to drive it, it can be driven
away.
If
that doctrine were applied in Woodstock or around McHenry County, the
revenues would surely drop. No more ka-ching, ka-ching from $500
dropping into the till at the P.D.
Did
Woodstock's City Fathers (with all due respect to the two women on
the City Council) think at all about the number of people who would
lose their cars entirely under this ordinance? If they thought about
it, it certainly wasn't to the point that they bothered to discuss it
out in the open. Was there another document from Woodstock's Police
Chief Robert Lowen in which he estimated how many of the impounded
vehicles would not be redeemed, because the owners were broke and
couldn't afford tow fees, storage, $500 impound fee (or fine or bond)
to retrieve the cars?
This
is a rotten ordinance that needs 1) to be repealed and 2) to have all
the tickets rescinded and fines (and bonds) returned. In fact, the
city should also reimburse the owners for towing and storage.
Anybody
agree?
4 comments:
While I agree with you entirely, I think that laws have gone beyond the utopian dreams of fairness. Now it is a capitalistic enterprise amerika of the almighty dollar ... who ever has the gold makes the rules.
It's gonna be like this until there is a revolt, and there won't be a revolt until decades of government theft and personal self dealing ... yeah, I'm a little cynical.
Oh, and the second reason that it won't be repealed (when it should) is that in a DUI case there is a hold on a vehicle for a number of hours (to keep the driver from driving drunk, again).
That hold means that the city has a legitimate reason to take the car off the street even if it is parked legally (and in some cases) even if it is in the driver's garage.
**As a side note ... my personal belief is that the loss of freedoms came when we allowed zoning laws that told someone what they could do with their property, after that it was all downhill--you should notice that it is always a good reason for which they take the liberty ...
loss of property rights is step one, loss of one's right to be not interfered with by the police is the second ...
Holding a car so that a drunk person can't drive is totally off the wall. That one is ripe for a Constitutional challenge.
What's next? Confiscating my debit card, so I can't buy more booze?
Actually, I think you are giving them new ideas .... shhhhhh!
(or assigning you a drinking license).
Post a Comment