Impound those cars
Not all of new Denver ordinance should succumb to legal challenge
Rocky Mountain News
Published August 18, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated August 18, 2008 at 2:17 p.m.
Denver officials are clearly unhappy that Initiated Ordinance 100 - the citizen-sponsored ballot measure requiring police to impound the cars of suspected illegal immigrants and other unlicensed drivers - passed, by a 54-46 margin.
We opposed it, too. And we still think it's lousy policy to force police to immediately seize and impound the vehicles of anyone who is caught - no exceptions - driving without a license.
But the ordinance is now part of Denver's Municipal Code. And we disagree with city officials who argue that nearly the entire amendment is unconstitutional. Part of it may well be, but surely the basic goal of impounding cars driven by unlicensed drivers should be able to withstand a legal test.
The portion of the ordinance most vulnerable to a constitutional smackdown is the one giving police the power to impound vehicles "when a driver of a vehicle is an illegal alien or may be reasonably suspected of being an illegal alien."
That's a crude attempt to deputize Denver police as immigration officers. And courts have repeatedly rejected city ordinances that try to pre-empt federal laws.
A law like this might withstand challenge if it required police to turn over to immigration officials inmates who violated local laws and could not prove legal residence in the United States. But this ordinance forces the cops to confiscate the cars of suspected illegal immigrants in a warrantless seizure of private property.
The Fourth Amendment frowns on such seizures except under very limited circumstances, including situations that pose a threat to public safety. A person who looks like an illegal immigrant (whatever that means) clearly fails that test.
The rest of the ordinance has a better chance of surviving a Fourth Amendment challenge. Courts have said the Bill of Rights allows police to seize vehicles without a court order if the seizure would prevent some immediate risk to the public or threat to the community.
People who don't have driver's licenses and operate vehicles on public streets - whether they've had their licenses revoked for multiple traffic violations, have broken other laws or haven't bothered to keep their driving privileges up to date - arguably pose such a danger. And remember, the vehicles don't become the permanent property of the city. The owners can retrieve them.
To be sure, it is unwise to force police to impound the vehicle of every unlicensed driver they find - especially if the driver has been cited for no other offense. Law enforcement should have some leeway in deciding when cars should be impounded, or when, say, a sober passenger should be allowed to drive the drunken owner's car home.
That said, Denver voters disagree. They think unlicensed drivers across the board are a hazard and want their cars impounded. Whether the city likes that policy or not, it should comply.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Legislature Blog
Read live updates from the opening of the 2009 legislative session.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Rocky year in photos
View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Shanahan's career
See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.
-
12 days of Drew
Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
August 18, 2008
3:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shadow writes:
Here we go again. Self rightous bumocrats sitting on their backsides are going to attempt to twart the will of the people.
The people have spoken and said get unlicensed drivers and their vehicals off the road. But these pork bloated officials are balking at the very concept of allowing the people to decide and force issues of safety and law.
Residents in Denver ned to take a long look at the those running for any office in Denver and rethink their support for encumbants. Do they really support and represent their constituants?
August 18, 2008
3:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
fatdog writes:
My wife and daugher were nearly killed by an unlicensed driver; as he got out of his car he remarked "I'm drunk and on drugs; but I haven't had a driver's license for seven years, so they can't take that away from me." I think that after the first few thousand cars are impounded, there will be fewer vehicles being driven by unlicensed drivers and the streets will be safer for all.
August 18, 2008
5:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike846 writes:
The point of the initiative was to send a message to the open-borders, Sanctuary-providing city officials. Obviously, as has been shown numerous times in the past, they don't CARE what the citizens of Denver think. They're going to continue to create a permanent underclass of cheap labor and users of entitlements that will serve their needs. Cops can "run" someone they stop; if that person has ID of any kind and comes up as having a license and registration, even if its not on them, the cops can kick them loose. What this initiative does is make it a requirement that absent that kind of identification in the DMV records they can access, then the car gets impounded. Watch the city use the constitutionality of the ordinance to get a friendly, left-wing judge, carefully chosen, to issue a restraining order while the ordinance is under judicial review. What a crock. Mike
August 18, 2008
6:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
SanctuaryCity writes:
Now people will get there stolen cars back
VIVA 100
August 18, 2008
7:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
uncledave writes:
The voters have spoken on this issue. City officials should be spending their time on implementing the policy instead of trying to find ways to thwart it. Voters will remember those officials who deliberately choose to do so at the polls.
August 18, 2008
7:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
The police usually stop someone for a reason. No where in the ordinance does it require the police to stop anyone for no reason.
If a person is stopped the police ask for a driver's license,registration and insurance. If a person cannot produce all of these documents, the car should be impounded. If they are here legally, can produce a legal driver's license, a legal registration and current insurance they can get their vehicle back. What is the problem?
The arguement that it targets illegal aliens is absurd. It targets people without driver's licenses and insurance. If a person is here illegally, they do not have a legal driver's license and usually no insurance. So what is the problem?
Are we supposed to allow people legal or illegal drive our roads with no licenses or insurance so we don't hurt their feelings?
People are fed up with being put at risk everyday by unlicensed, uninsured driver's. It has to stop! If illegal aliens get their cars impounded so friggin what! Are we supposed to pass laws that only pertain to everyone except illegals?
I saw a story on Fox News last night about the city of Denver booting cars with 3 or more outstanding tickets. They actually have people who drive around all day typeing in license plate numbers of parked vehicles and booting them right there. The vehicle owners have to pay off their tickets and more money to get the boot removed. What is the difference between booting unsuspecting vehicle owners and forcing them to pay their tickets and boot charges and impounding vehicles of unlicensed drivers? Isn't booting the same thing as impounding? Both practices force the vehicle owners to pay what the city tells them to and to follow the law. So what's the problem?
August 18, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
FlyfishDude52 writes:
RMN says, "That's a crude attempt to deputize Denver police as immigration officers. And courts have repeatedly rejected city ordinances that try to pre-empt federal laws."
Pardon me but isn't the Denver P.D. already peace officers dedicated to enforce the law? So what the Rocky is suggesting is taht the DPD doesn't have jurisdiction over illegal aliens? Only the feds? What B-S! It sounds to me as though the DPD doesn't want THE ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITY! Too bad! I think the DPD does a far above average job when compared to other metro areas. I'd like to hear exactly what the DPD administration thinks of it before we read some half baked idea from a mediawackoistic RMN writer.
August 18, 2008
10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
And does ANYONE know a new driver who,upon completing the rite of passage known as "getting your license",would then leave his/her shiny new proof of adulthood at home?
August 18, 2008
10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Well,Flyfish,it does seem as though DPD was more than willing to enforce state marijuana laws regardless of Denver voters' sentiments to the contrary.So maybe it's more that those who enforce the law get to make the law too.
August 18, 2008
11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
JSeifert writes:
Maybe its time to pass a law that says that if a state offical , county offical or a city offical refuses to enforce the law or does anything to stop what the people voted on they are removed from office that day.
August 18, 2008
11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Citizen21 writes:
If you are stopped for a traffic offense and are not a licensed driver, the office should be able to write you a ticket for the traffic offense, arrest you for driving without a license, and impound the car. If you are not responsible enough to obtain a valid driver’s license, you should be arrested when caught driving. Impounding the car is a GREAT idea. Get these irresponsible people off the roads.
If in the process, it is determined that the person committing the offense is in the United States illegally, then the police can detain the person and call immigration officials. What is so hard to understand? If this is not enforced, it simply sends the message that you are entitled to more rights when you live here illegally than when you are an actual American citizen.
August 18, 2008
11:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
lucy writes:
It's interesting that Denver doesn't seem to have a constitutionality problem with the ordinance that allows them to permanently seize vehicles SUSPECTED of being used in the commission of a crime. It doesn't matter if the charges are dropped or the person is found not guilty or if the car owner wasn't involved in any way, they NEVER get the car back. This ordinance seems minor by comparison. As far as "law enforcement should have some leeway in deciding when cars should be impounded, or when, say, a sober passenger should be allowed to drive the drunken owner's car home," unfortunately when law enforcement is given leeway it decides not to enforce the laws with respect to illegal aliens. It's easier to let them go. So this is the result when citizens finally have had it up to their eyeballs with selective enforcement.
August 18, 2008
11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Nothing like missing the whole point of that part of the editorial. The police ought to have no right to seize someone's car, seize their private property and hold it, because the officer merely suspects that they're in the country illegally. This ordinance allows police officers to take someone's private property on a mere suspicion. You look like a "furriner" to a cop? Bam! Your car is seized and you have to try to get it back. Now you have to come up with the cash to bail your car out of impoundment (the payday loan companies will love Initiative 100), figure out how to get to work or try to get your boss to grant you a few days' leave (can you say "f-i-r-e-d!"). You ever hear of being busted for "driving while Black" in the suburbs? Now we'll have people losing their cars, at least temporarily, for "driving while Hispanic". Do you think a chap from Canada, overstaying his visa, is going to make a cop suspect he's here illegally? No! But, Mr. Herrera, who runs out of the house and forgets his license? You betcha!
I'm sorry, but this stupid ordinance is an irrational, ludicrous, wildly heavyhanded response to the issue of illegal aliens. Denver can't fix the borders or change the immigration laws. And don't complain when Denver considers an increase in taxes because they need a bigger impound lot, more officers to manage the impound lot, more court clerks to handle the requests to get cars out of impoundment, more judges to hear impound cases, etc.
August 18, 2008
11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Citizen21 writes:
peterpi - do the math. This is actually going to be a revenue generator for Denver. And, I'm all for the seizure of a car if a person drives without a valid license. What, the cops are just supposed to let the person drive away? Chances are, if you don’t have a valid license, you are not going to be insured either. I’m tired of paying for those who skirt around the laws with no consequences. If an uninsured driver hits me, my rates go up – regardless of who’s at fault for the accident. If you forget your wallet or purse, you are still in the system. Police can confirm you are a licensed driver. There is nothing wrong with upholding the law.
I did not miss the point of the editorial, but it seems you missed the point of Ordinance 100.
August 18, 2008
12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
MrPeabody writes:
This is simply pushback by citizens tired of Denver's city officials looking the other way on the issue of illegal aliens. Sanctuary city policies, unlicensed and uninsured drivers all contribute to this resentment. If you or I drive with no license or insurance and are caught or have an accident, I suspect that our treatment is somewhat different than that of another group of people. People are tired of the double standard.
Poorly crafted? Yup. Unintended consequences? Most likely. Will it be enforced? Doubtful. The City is already trying to find ways around enforcing it.
Citizens are tired of an unresponsive city administration that pretends that certain issues don't exist. If we wait for the city government to "fix" these issues, we'd have a long, long wait. So, we get ballot initiatives instead of action from our elected officials.
No surprise there.
August 18, 2008
12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
yaakovwatkins writes:
Lucy makes an interesting point. Police may permanently seize a vehicle they suspect is used in drug trading. There is no reason why they can't temporarily impound a car where the driver is suspected of being an illegal.
August 18, 2008
1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
Peterpi thinks that just because a cop "thinks" a person "looks" illegal their car will be towed while another poster nails it with the observation that the police would rather NOT enforce this law because they might not produce enough revenue to make their quotas for tickets. Long waits for tow trucks are a reason, but, if you really think it won't be fairly easy to enforce, just remember all those highly touted safety stops for seatbelts and DUI. Our police departments tell us it is vital that they enforce those laws to protect citizens. Let them start enforcing this law when a car is stopped for an offense or at one of these checkpoints, and the tow trucks will be lined up around the block and not just for illegal immigrants...for illegal drivers. DUI drivers are notorious for driving on suspended licenses. They usually use a "friends" car which the friend may not even know exists except for the fifty bucks his buddy gave him for letting it be put in his name. Wifes of such scofflaws are also enablers who provide car (and insurance usually) to human projectiles who don't give a fig about anyone but themselves. Those are the first cars that will be impounded. The police impound yard can be expanded by allowing tow companies to use their own tow yard and making this information (location of the tow yard where the vehicle was taken) available to the vehicle owner the next day. No car owned by a driver caught driving without a license who can't provide proof of legal license will be released. They'll be sold. Owners who left a license home can reclaim a car by providing proof. Professional truck drivers memorize their drivers' license numbers. This guarantees that the individual can prove legal license even if they have lost a wallet and don't know it's lost until stopped. That number is a fast shortcut to verification. If you want an extra measure of safety, copy the number down and leave it in your glove box. The police pull up a picture on their computers so they can verify a match with the driver.
In the end, the ordinance will create a reason for unlicensed drivers to avoid Denver. Expect to see more unpaid bills in suburban ERs and more accidents outside the city involving unlicensed drivers.
Not too long ago a local TV station did a news story on how unlicensed drivers, most of them illegal by their own admissions, left court after paying a fine for driving without a license or insurance and got behind the wheel to drive home. RTD will get more crowded and the pay scale for Denver workers in fast food will likely go up.
Best possible ending would be if Hicky and friends fought this and lost just in time to lose the next city elections.
August 18, 2008
1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
FlyfishDude52 writes:
peterpi - I appreciate your concern for 4th Ammendment rights, after all it is our constitution. But, if someone is stopped driving a car and can't produce driver's license, proof of insurance and registration who cares if they're an alien or not? They're committing an illegal act. So we should have no recourse if this is the case?
I maintain that the DPD, probably, doesn't WANT to deal with it or likkenhooper & his cronies don't feel it would be in the spirit of their "sanctuary city" status in the "Journal of Infiltrating the USA." And you know how sensitive that group is to negative PR...
August 18, 2008
3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
First of all I do feel that these cars should be impounded. But I'm not a lawyer or do I have the qualifications to say what is unconstitutional. That is why we pay Supreme Court Justices a lot of money. Now when someone mentions the will of the people that doesn't mean we can vote on things that are unconstitutional. Example if a anti gun measure was voted on it would not stand because of constitutional law.
August 18, 2008
6:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
FutureDenver writes:
Council lady Jeanne Faatz of Denver Dist. 2 said the police in her district are estimating 4 of ten pullovers are unlicensed drivers. Hick said the Denver Safety Dept. estimates there will be 30,000 additional cars towed annually. Apparently that's how many they let go now. That's a very big "threat to public safety" as the RMN says must be shown to be constitutional. Everyone knows you can't prove a negative, that is, you can't prove that a person is not a citizen. So you require they prove that they are by asking them for a driver's license. Pretty simple. Pretty effective. As far as nearby cities & counties, they can do the same thing or will that need to done for them, again.
August 18, 2008
9:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Everyone who voted for Ordinance 100 needs to have his or her car impounded. I reckon they must've done something wrong. They're easy meat because they don't know the meaning of the 4th Amendment.
Due process? We don't need no stinkin' due process! Gimme the keys! Don't forget to bring cash to the impound lot. Have a nice walk home.
August 19, 2008
1:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
TC and HTT
The police already have the right to impound cars of unlicensed drivers. This law added that vehicles of illegal aliens can be towed if they believe that the driver is an illegal alien. I'd guess that part gets tossed.
And a lot of white guys on a bender are going to get their cars towed. Probably be the first ones in line. Their cars will bring a lot more money and it will increase safety by a hundredfold. If they are the owners of the car it will be impounded for sale. This is totally legal in many states. Since it is a legal concept it might require the conviction of the person for the crime, but a DUI driver driving without license will not have any excuse that holds water. Any driver without a license can be sent on their way by the police with impound ment delayed while they obtain their documents. This might cover your guy going to the gym. A driver who loses his ID can contact the police and let them record the loss before a traffic stop happens.
The big complaint is that the illegal immigrants don't have legal licenses and have thumbed their noses at the requirements of license, insurance and registration. As a truck driver I had my driver's license number memorized. That worked well. An officer can call up the license and picture and verify that the driver is legally entitled to be behind the wheel. Most of the time the illegal immigrants are way ahead of law enforcement. They will move out and stay out of Denver. Drunks and unlicensed drivers never learn so don't worry. The white guy with a lawyer is going to lose a car first. Probably a lot of white guys and black guys and fewer Hispanic guys because legal immigrants will celebrate and illegals will move out of the danger zone. Look at Oklahoma for proof.
If you want to coddle illegals feel free to do so. Heck. Loan them your car. You only have to pay a bond and a fine with towing fees. After that, you will have to wait a year to get the bond back. You get it if you don't allow an unlicensed driver to drive your car. I'm sure the illegals would appreciate someone to give them rides. Go ahead and volunteer. By the end of the first year with enforcement of this law (after the legal system tries to find ways around it) , the numbers will prove how right this law is. Costs to Denver hospitals and schools will decrease. Accidents and a lot of hit and run incidents will be down. Real numbers. And te other result will be that the surounding areas will have more accidents and hit/runs. Police chases might even be down in Denver.
As I said earlier, I sure hope Hicky tries to fight this and loses just in time to get tossed out on his ear by the same votes who approved this. And the problem is already out of control.
August 19, 2008
3:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
AngelontheSidelines writes:
Cops have their little computers, and radios. If you don't possess your CDL immediately for the cop who stops you for whatever reason, they can look you up. It is standard procedure anyway to look it up and verify the license, so it doesn't really matter to the law abiding if forgetful driver.
Driving a car is not a right protected in our constitution. It is a privilege controlled by the state. Car ownership may be a right, but driving without a license is illegal and a liability against the general public that goes beyond a nuisance is more of a community hazard we deserve to be free of, in addition to the hazards uninsured drivers.
August 20, 2008
5:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
yaakovwatkins writes:
The new ordinance does not force the police to impound a vehicle. If you read the rest of the ordinance that 100 amended, you will see that the officer may at his discretion impound the vehicle. http://www.municode.com/Resources/gat...
The constitutional issue of impounding has already been dealt with in the courts. If the police suspect someone is carrying drugs in the car, the police may seize and keep the car even if the driver is found innocent. Here the police must give the car back.