BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1993
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1993 (Ma)
As Amended April 17, 2012
Majority vote
TRANSPORTATION 8-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Bonnie Lowenthal, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Blumenfield, Bonilla, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Buchanan, Eng, Carter, | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| |Norby, Solorio | |Gatto, Ammiano, Hill, |
| | | |Lara, Mitchell, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Jeffries, Miller |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Revises mandatory vehicle impoundment penalties for
unlicensed drivers. Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits a peace officer from towing and impounding a vehicle
driven by an unlicensed driver if the vehicle can be legally
parked near the scene of the traffic stop and retrieved by a
licensed driver within a reasonable amount of time.
2)Requires a peace officer to inform the unlicensed driver that
the vehicle will not be towed or impounded if a licensed
driver can retrieve the vehicle within a reasonable amount of
time.
3)Authorizes a peace officer to use his or her discretion in
allowing a licensed driver to appear to retrieve the vehicle.
4)Authorizes a peace officer to use his or her discretion and
available resources in assisting the unlicensed driver in
contacting a licensed driver to retrieve the vehicle.
5)Requires the licensed driver to present a valid driver's
license and evidence of financial responsibility prior to
assuming control over the vehicle.
AB 1993
Page 2
6)Requires the registered owner of the vehicle to provide
authorization before allowing a licensed driver to operate the
car and to sign an agreement holding the police officer and
his or her employer harmless for any harm or damage that might
result.
7)Requires a peace officer to obtain the approval of a
supervisory officer before towing and impounding a vehicle of
an unlicensed driver and to list the name of the approving
supervisor in the incident report.
8)Requires the release of an unlicensed driver's impounded
vehicle upon presentation of the registered owner's or his or
her agent's valid driver's license and proof of current
vehicle registration or upon court order.
9)Makes related, conforming amendments.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes a peace officer to impound for 30 days a vehicle
driven by an unlicensed driver.
2)Requires a peace officer to impound, and subjects to
forfeiture, a vehicle driven by an unlicensed driver who is
the registered owner of the vehicle if that person has a
previous misdemeanor conviction for operating a vehicle
without a driver's license.
3)Authorizes local jurisdictions or a state agency to adopt a
regulation, ordinance, or resolution establishing procedures
for the release of a properly impounded vehicle and for
imposing charges equal to their administrative costs.
4)Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to require an
applicant for an original driver's license or identification
card to submit satisfactory proof that the applicant's
presence is authorized under federal law.
5)Prohibits DMV from issuing an original driver's license or
identification card of a person who does not submit
satisfactory proof that the applicant's presence in the U.S.
is authorized under federal law.
AB 1993
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill would result in negligible direct state
costs.
COMMENTS: Existing law authorizes police officers to impound
and hold vehicles for 30 days when the vehicle that is stopped
is being driven by unlicensed driver. The author cites that in
most circumstances, when a driver commits a violation, they are
cited and allowed to depart from the traffic stop with their
vehicle. The author points out, however, that when an
unlicensed driver is stopped, their vehicle is impounded for 30
days. The cost to retrieve these vehicles can be so substantial
that in many cases the vehicle is simply never retrieved by the
owner. This situation can add to the economic hardship for
undocumented persons and their families, who the author states,
are most often affected by these unfair impoundment practices.
By introducing this legislation, the author intends to provide a
more equitable standard by prohibiting the automatic 30 day
impoundment of vehicles driven by unlicensed drivers and
instead, allow unlicensed drivers to park the vehicle in a safe
location and have a licensed driver come and retrieve it, where
possible. The author notes that this bill would require the
unlicensed driver and the licensed driver retrieving the vehicle
to assume all responsibility in the event the vehicle injures
someone.
This bill provides for peace officer discretion regarding the
amount of time given for a licensed driver to come and retrieve
the vehicle as well as with regard to assisting the unlicensed
driver in contacting the licensed driver. The bill also
provides that if a vehicle of the unlicensed driver cannot be
retrieved and must be towed and impounded, the vehicle can be
immediately released to the registered owner if they present a
valid driver's license, proof of current vehicle registration,
and pay all required fees.
The author notes that this bill is modeled after practices
adopted by various California cities in response to recent Ninth
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upholding decisions that
law enforcement cannot impound vehicles if the only offense is
unlicensed driving. Specifically, the federal court recently
upheld the Salazar v. City of Maywood, et al. (Ninth Circuit
AB 1993
Page 4
Case No. Case: 08-56604) on appeal from Salazar v.
Schwarzenegger (District Court Case No. CV07-01854). The 21
Salazar plaintiffs sued several municipalities (including the
City and County of Los Angeles) and various state officials,
claiming that plaintiffs' constitutional due process rights were
violated when their vehicles were impounded and that the
statutory scheme unfairly impacted undocumented immigrants.
The author also claims that the practice of impounding vehicles
of unlicensed drivers has resulted in lucrative income for some
cities. In making this claim, the author points to an article
published in the San Francisco Chronicle in 2009 that reports
the City of Oakland impounded the vehicles of over 2,000
unlicensed drivers and in doing so generating revenues totaling
over $288,000. Reports regarding towing and impounding
associated with sobriety checkpoints show that many
jurisdictions are making money from associated towing and
impound fees.
Opponents of this bill suggest that the penalty for driving
without a license is warranted in order to protect Californians
from the harm caused by unlicensed drivers. Some governmental
entities have struggled with this policy, which they believe can
lead to liability if it is not followed since municipalities can
be sued if there is no impound and the car subsequently is
driven and causes damage, or is damaged after the traffic stop.
For example, recently, a suit was brought against Solano County
for serious injuries suffered by a man when his trailer was
struck by a vehicle driven by someone with a suspended license a
sheriff failed to impound the unlicensed driver's vehicle during
a traffic stop weeks before the accident.
Opponents of this bill have also expressed concerns that driving
without a license means that the driver is also driving without
insurance, a practice that the state has identified as dangerous
for other motorists, pedestrians and any individuals that may
accompany the unlicensed driver. Opponents also note that
existing law already provides various exemptions for unlicensed
drivers and that this bill simply moves California one step
closer to condoning vehicle operation without a valid license.
Previous legislation: AB 353 (Cedillo) Chapter 653, Statutes of
2011, prohibits the impoundment of a vehicle stopped at a
sobriety checkpoint if the driver's sole offense is the failure
AB 1993
Page 5
to be properly licensed.
SB 591 (Cedillo) of 2005, would have exempted from 30-day
impoundment, the vehicle of a person who did not have a license
because he or she could not meet the requirement that his or her
presence in the U.S. was authorized by law. That bill died in
the Senate policy committee.
SB 675 (Cedillo) of 2005, would have declared the intent of the
Legislature that law enforcement provides safe transportation
for persons whose vehicles are seized in specified situations.
That bill was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger who cited that
the provisions of the bill intended to restrict law enforcement
by mandating that transportation be provided in a specified
manner.
Analysis Prepared by : Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-
2093
FN: 0003835