BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 510 Hearing Date: April 28, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Hall |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 16, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Speed Contests: Impounded Vehicles
HISTORY
Source: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Prior Legislation:SB 67 (Perata) - Chapter 727, Stats. 2007
SB 1489 (Perata) - Chapter 411, Stats. 2002
AB 2288 (Aguiar) - Chapter 884, Stats. 1996
SB 833 (Bonta) - Chapter 922, Stats. 1995
AB 5 - Chapter 3, Stats. 1959
Support: The Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs;
California Law Enforcement Association of Records
Supervisors, Inc.; The Los Angeles Police Protective
League; The Riverside Sheriffs Association
Opposition:None known
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to mandate that a court order the
impoundment of a vehicle used in street racing and to clarify
that a vehicle must be repaired after it is released from
impound.
SB 510 (Hall ) Page
2 of ?
Existing law provides that any person who drives any vehicle
upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of
persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. A person who
drives any vehicle in any off-street parking facility in a
willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or
property is guilty of reckless driving. (Vehicle Code § 23103.)
Existing law provides that when a person is arrested for a speed
contest the officer may impound the vehicle for not more than 30
days. The registered and legal owner of the vehicle shall be
provided with a hearing regarding the storage and the vehicle
shall be returned before the conclusion of the impoundment
period under the following circumstances:
If the vehicle is a stolen vehicle;
If the person alleged to have engaged in the speed contest
was not authorized by the registered owner to drive the
vehicle at the time of the offense;
If the legal or registered owner is a rental agency;
If the citation is dismissed and criminal charges are not
filed.
To the legal owner if the legal owner pays the impoundment
fees and presents foreclosure documents. (Vehicle Code §
23109.2.)
Existing law provides that no person shall engage in any motor
vehicle speed contest which includes a motor vehicle race
against another vehicle, a clock, or other timing device.
Existing law also prohibits aiding or abetting in a seed
contest. Existing law also prohibits the exhibition of speed in
any motor vehicle or the aiding and abetting of the exhibition
of speed. The penalty for a speed contest or the exhibition of
speed is a misdemeanor punishable as a first offense by 24 hours
to 90 days in jail and/or a fine of $355-$1,000 and for a second
offense within five years 4 days to six months in jail and a
fine of $500-$1,000. (Vehicle Code § 23109 (a).)
Existing law states that if a person is convicted of a street
racing violation, and the vehicle used during the violation is
registered to the person, the vehicle may be impounded at the
registered owner's expense for between one and 30 days.
(Vehicle Code §23109 (h).)
This bill changes the "may" to a "shall" and thus provides that
SB 510 (Hall ) Page
3 of ?
the vehicle shall be impounded.
Existing law provides that a person shall not operate a vehicle
impounded on any public or road if the vehicle is inspected and
found in violation of the code without first correcting the
violation. (Vehicle Code § 23109(h)(2).)
This bill also prohibitions operation of the vehicle if the
impounded vehicle was found to be in violation of a mechanical
requirement of this code without first correction of the
violation.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In February of this year the administration reported that as "of
February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed
capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. This current population is now below the
court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity."(
Defendants' February 2015 Status Report In Response To February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
SB 510 (Hall ) Page
4 of ?
population, the state now must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for The Bill
According to the author:
Illegal street racing is a growing danger to those
behind the wheel, passengers, spectators and innocent
passers-by that may be injured or killed. Reports of
innocent people being assaulted and vehicles being
vandalized for simply trying to drive around illegal
racing activities are on the rise. Illegal drug use,
drunk driving, stolen vehicles and stolen weapons are
among the offenses that are cited by law enforcement
when street racing events are broken up.
Many of the vehicles cited for street racing have
undergone thousands of dollars in dangerous and
illegal modifications. These modifications include
radar jammers, lowered frames, air and hydraulic
SB 510 (Hall ) Page
5 of ?
suspension systems, window tinting, missing bumpers,
engine modifications, multicolored headlights, and
excessively noisy exhaust systems and mufflers.
Currently, a vehicle used for illegal street racing
may be impounded at the expense of the owner form one
to 30 days upon conviction. After this time, the
vehicle is returned to the owner with the illegal
modifications intact. This allows the owner to
immediately begin using the vehicle for illegal street
racing activities; endangering themselves and innocent
passers-by.
This bill seeks to remedy this deficiency in current
law by requiring a longer impound, and removal of
Illegal modifications for purposes of street racing.
2. Mandatory Impound
Existing law provides that law enforcement may impound for 30
days upon arrest and a court may impound upon conviction of a
street contest violation. This bill would provide that the
court shall impound a car upon a violation of street racing.
Street racing has been an ongoing issue in some communities in
California. The Los Angeles Sheriffs recently worked with the
CHP on an operation to stop street racers in South Los Angeles
County:
The operation, centered near the intersection of
Broadway and Imperial Highway, Unincorporated South
Los Angeles, was spearheaded by personnel from Carson
Sheriff's Station. The operation utilized law
enforcement personnel from Century, South Los Angeles,
Compton, and Lakewood Sheriff's Stations, officers
from the California Highway Patrol and LASD Aero
Bureau. The operation included 44 arrests that ranged
from warrant arrests to drug related offenses.
Unlicensed drivers and those driving on a suspended
license were also part of the 209 citations issued, in
addition to the 54 vehicles that were towed.
Social media is used to promote the gathering of
vehicles to participate in illegal activities and
often draws upwards of 300 vehicles and more than 500
SB 510 (Hall ) Page
6 of ?
spectators. Street racing and cruising is not only a
public nuisance, it is highly dangerous. Street
racing often results in traffic collisions, injuries
and fatalities. (LA Sheriff Press Release dated April
20, 2015)
3. Double Impoundment?
In addition to the court impounding the vehicle, the law
allows law enforcement to impound a vehicle up to 30 days
at the scene of the violation. This bill would make the
court impoundment mandatory. Should the bill be amended to
create an exception to the mandatory court impoundment for
those cars that have already been impounded under the
section allowing law enforcement to impound so that there
is not double impoundment of the same vehicle?
4. Family Necessity?
Although it is unusual in cars used in street racing to be
the only car in a family, in other cases of impounding car
we have given the court to not impound the vehicle if the
court finds that it is the sole means of transportation for
other members of the family. Should the bill be amended to
make it clear that the court has the discretion to not
impound the car if it finds that it is the sole means of
transportation for other family members?
5. Correction Language
This bill provides that a person shall not drive a vehicle
that is impounded until any mechanical or other issues have
been corrected. By the time the person is convicted in
court and their car impounded, any fix-it tickets should
have been corrected since the time frame for correction is
usually 30 days (Vehicle Code § 40610) Also the language
is unclear that the person must make the corrections after
the impound. Should this language be clarified to state
that the vehicle shall be corrected, unless it has already
been corrected, and that correction shall be filed with the
court within 30 days?
-- END -
SB 510 (Hall ) Page
7 of ?