The car-seizure ordinance
Rocky Mountain News
Published May 11, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Denver police have the discretion to impound a driver's vehicle for a host of reasons. Obstructing traffic, driving without a license, parking in a tow-away zone, using stolen license plates - 19 separate offenses are spelled out in Chapter 54 of the Municipal Code.
However, the cops rarely seize vehicles unless a motorist was either stopped for multiple violations or is a serial offender. This policy makes sense for reasons that we'll explain. But a measure that seems destined for the August ballot would add a 20th category - immigration status - as well as require cops to impound the vehicle of every apparently unlicensed driver they ticket.
We do not minimize the potential dangers unlicensed motorists can pose to the public. Those whose licenses were revoked because they were convicted of speeding, reckless driving, DUI or other serious traffic offenses have no business behind the wheel.
But this confusing ballot measure has all the precision of a sawed-off shotgun. It should never become part of Denver's code.
Under one headline-grabbing section of the proposal, police must impound the vehicles of suspected illegal immigrants unless the drivers can prove they're in this country legally. And who, pray tell, should police suspect as illegal? Any motorist carrying a foreign driver's license. Unless those drivers can prove they're here legally, the vehicle must be impounded.
This is a clumsy attempt to use local cops to enforce federal immigration law, and it will end up harassing tourists and other legal visitors. The Denver Municipal Code is the wrong place to do this.
Besides, you would think an ordinance stating that "illegal aliens . . . pose a significant danger to the people" would require police to detain these suspected lawbreakers, or even report them to federal authorities. It doesn't. It just confiscates their cars.
Another, less-publicized section is even more sweeping. It forces police to impound the vehicle of every driver - not just suspected illegal immigrants - who cannot present a valid license. So the harried dad taking his kids to softball practice who left his wallet at home faces the same penalty as the raging drunk careening down Interstate 25.
Police officers should be trusted to decide who poses the greater public danger; this ordinance overrides those judgment calls.
Perhaps acknowledging that concern, the ordinance has an exception. Officers may choose to not impound a vehicle if a driver provides "convincing corroborating identification" indicating that he has a license but isn't carrying it. The driver then has three days to go to Denver County Court and prove he's duly licensed. If he can't, the car is hauled away.
Even with the exception, drivers with valid licenses who want to save their vehicles will have to make a court appearance.
Again, police should have the discretion to determine which drivers have made a careless mistake and which are serious or serial offenders deserving more than a modest fine.
We might sympathize with a proposal making impounds mandatory for drivers whose licenses were revoked - or motorists who've been stopped more than once and didn't have their licenses.
But this measure is a nightmare in the making that should never go on the books.
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
-
2008 Voter’s Guide
Use our Ballot Builder tool to compare your viewpoints to the candidates.
-
A Dozen on Denver
Sandra Dallas wrote 'Lennie's tavern' for our ongoing fiction series. Check it out!
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on today's events.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's totally biased pregame rant about the Broncos-Jaguars game.
-
Presidential Elections
See how Colorado counties have voted through the years.
-
County election profiles
A look at how residents in each Colorado county may vote.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
-
Latest from Dove Valley
Click for more broncos videos.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
No. 44 means a lot to Floyd Little
May 11, 2008
1:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
kevin3 writes:
Tow truck drivers would love this new municipal code! My motto is this: anything that is good for the tow truck drivers is bad for the public!
May 11, 2008
8:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
"Officers may choose to not impound a vehicle if a driver provides "convincing corroborating identification" indicating that he has a license but isn't carrying it."
So if your registration and insurance card are in the car, and you can tell the officer your address and Social Security number for him to check on his in-car laptop, he can write you a ticket and let you go.
But if you have no license, false registration, and expired insurance and cannot provide any information on social security number or any way for the officer to check the status of your license, you get to walk home.
I don't see any problem there.
May 11, 2008
8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
Nice comeback! blacksho89. Makes the RMN arguement that a hurried mistake out the door is not an excuse to not put in the "show me your legal staus" part of their discretion when pulling over many illegals driving illegally. It's obvious the federal government can't keep up with the job of tracking every illegal. Taking their vehicles is only one more thing that local law enforcement can do to help an illegal move to a more helpful sanctuary city like LA, San Francisco or Chicago. Someone needs to get the word out that these cities specifically have said they are sanctuary cities and are proud of it. Perhaps when the police pull over a suspected illegal he could hand him or her a flyer and directions to both of these cities as a public service to the legal citizens.
May 11, 2008
9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
I would propose that the confiscated vehicles be auctioned and the proceeds go to fixing the roads and bridges, having your drivers license on your person has long been a rule of driving, so has having proper registration and proof of insurance, if you are here, and driving legally, whats the problem? If you were so foolish as to forget your license, perhaps a little inconvience will help you to remember next time, on the other hand, if you dont have one, are driving illegally, why not impound and even confiscate a vehicle. Auction the conficated vehicles and put the funds to good use.
May 11, 2008
10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Taking the vehicles and auctioning them for fixing roads and bridges amounts to going to buy groceries for a week with a quarter. It's not putting a dent in anything.
So what happens if the driver had his wallet or her purse stolen, and they don't have proper ID? Guess the law is absolute for some of you...... screw them and tow the vehicle. Drivers are supposed to carry license, registration and insurance. They're also not supposed to speed, drive too close, etc., so where does it stop? Does the Denver Nazi police then push for having them towed too, adding yet another law to the books? Government intrusion, and I'm not for it.
May 11, 2008
11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
Agreed. I only see one small problem with this ordinance but I'll get to that later. A person who forgets a license or other documents would have to pay for a tow and or storage. Some stupid lawyer will sue. The proceeds from selling the cars of scofflaws should cover that expense since the law is clear that you must have proof of insurance, registration and a valid license with you at all times when driving. Means if you don't have your license you will have other documents to show. It also means that those who thumb their noses at the law, like those in the Channel 7 investigation will have to obey the law or leave. That segment proved there where dozens of those given tickets for no license, no registration and no insurance who got fines then went out and drove their cars home. The reporter confronted them and they were defiant. They didn't need no stinkin' license. (nor insurance or registration either.)
It's long past time for this law. I hope other cities and states copy this. Like I said, there will be one difficulty. The cities will have to hire more tow companies and rent more storage yards. The best law I've heard of in years.
May 11, 2008
1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
If the state of Colorado cracked down on uninsured motorist by using a database like many other states they would have more than enough money to pay for the roads.Heavy fines of $150 per day for a person who does not have insurance can amount to quite a bit of money. Also a database will let the state know when a person has been dropped or canceled their insurance. A letter can be sent out making them prove they have insurance or the fines kick in the day the insurance lapsed or was canceled. A friend of mine from Maryland had let her insurance lapse and was stopped for a traffic violation.The database showed she had no insurance and the date it was void. She went to jail and paid the fines and fees before she could get out. She won't be doing that again.
For those of you who say why should we clog up our jails with traffic offenders who can't pay. Let them work it off cleaning up our state. Many highways and roads can use some sprucing up. Also community service is a way for them to work off their fines. Maryland uses this for the people who can't pay. Don't you think this would be a good lesson for ignorant people who think the law does not apply to them?
May 11, 2008
6:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brix57 writes:
What's funny of most all of the comments on this article is that they are all by licensed drivers who may or may not have had a ticket in awhile. Where is it written that a drivers' license and a car is an inalienable right? Perhaps they added it to the Bill of Rights when no one was looking? Automobiles and the accidents that happen with them for various reasons kill 40,000 people a year and injure many tens of thousands more.
Impounding and selling vehicles after their drivers have either committed an infraction or having been in an accident will ensure that only those responsible enough to drive, can. It will return to the time when having a license and having a car is a privilege and not a right bestowed by someone's god.
Not being able to produce identification when stopped and questioned by an officer of the law has been a misdemeanor offense in all 50 states for a few years now. The arguments of a harried person 'forgetting' their identification are moot.
May 11, 2008
11:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
nonayerbsns writes:
So, the rocky wants the police response to be "hey, that's not my yob man."
May 12, 2008
1:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
FutureDenver writes:
As the treasurer and creator of the "car-seizure ordinance", I have a few questions for the RMN editors who wrote this story, whomever they may be. There are many false and misleading statements made about our initiative. Is that OK? For example, a driver with a license from another country is not towed automatically or even close. Read the ordinance on futuredenver.com. In another paragraph the news cherry picks from two sections combining the significant danger posed by an unlicensed driver with the definition of an illegal alien and then they ask why the feds aren't brought in. We're towing cars, not people. Just what dog does the news have in this race anyway? Denver's courts are jammed with illegals who simply pay a fine and drive away. If they hit you, you'd better have insurance because they don't. Nice job Denver! Before I could "post my comment" I had to agree not to make any off topic, defamatory, or threatening comments. It's too bad the ghost writers for the news don't practice the same.
May 12, 2008
6:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
holekeeper writes:
I beleive that if this becomes law the one major negitive reaction to it will be people running. We have a high speed prusuit areund here once in a while and now that mast departments have a no- prusuit policy and the criminals know this they will just run and take thier chances putting innocent people in danger just to save thier cars. I like laws that make being a criminal harder but I cant say I agree with this one.
May 12, 2008
7:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
The federal Government won't do anything, so local law enforcement should. Are we going to sit back and let these illegals drive around? Insurance is high enough. Too bad the Politicians don't get mail from all the opinion writers in this forum, maybe they'd get off their duffs and deal with the problem.
May 12, 2008
8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
Posted by anarchist on May 11, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would propose that the confiscated vehicles be auctioned and the proceeds go to fixing the roads and bridges, having your drivers license on your person has long been a rule of driving, so has having proper registration and proof of insurance, if you are here, and driving legally, whats the problem? If you were so foolish as to forget your license, perhaps a little inconvience will help you to remember next time, on the other hand, if you dont have one, are driving illegally, why not impound and even confiscate a vehicle. Auction the conficated vehicles and put the funds to good use.
Are you advocating the State confinscate private property and then sale it to make a profit? Are you sure you are an anarchist? Maybe you are a spray paint, window breaking socialist?
May 12, 2008
11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
OhBrother writes:
ok, exactly what would this REALLY do? So if your found to be here illegaly they just tow your car and...you probaly save up a few checks and get another one. I don't get how this will solve or prevent anything. All I think this will do is make more illegals steal identification so they appear to be citizens and don't get towed.
May 12, 2008
11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
fatheromalley writes:
"And who, pray tell, should police suspect as illegal?"
Then author treats every reader like we're stupid.. this is pretty consistant when it comes to this paper.. maybe that's why subscriptions are down. hmmmmmm...
Let's see if I can answer this without calling the author a propagandist thinly disquised as a Rocky Opinion Writer..
Errr. ... Latino, can't speak english and hss several names in the database..
Of oourse we can't do that, that's "profiling" errrr. yeah.. what you stupid, we don't seem to have too much of a problem with 'anglo' illegal immigrants, now do we?
OR , "if one person is pulled over by mistake it's a bad law.." and that too is crap!!!!!
I think it's a great ordinance... maybe I can get my stolen Intrepid back.. pull them over officer!
www.fatheromalley.com
May 12, 2008
12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mtnsjohn writes:
The Rocky needs to do it's homework. Forgetting one's driver's license and getting stopped just means a cop spends about 10 seconds gathering last name and dob. Usually within minutes after checking "DOR" computers, the officer knows whether the driver is valid and who the car is registered to. Most cops never issue the ticket for the driver not having his license on his person - cause going to court with the license means the case is dropped anyway in most jurisdictions.
An adult driving without a license and where there is no record in the computer data bases means the driver is under suspension, revocation or other restraint, the driver is using another name because there is a warrant, or the driver can't get one because he or she is illegally in the country.....and another problem is that the unlicensed driver usually is driving without insurance. I get to buy uninsured motorist insurance to protect me from them.
Regardless, anyone driving without a valid license needs to have their vehicle towed and with any legal link to the vehicle they were driving, have the vehicle forfeited. Same goes for chronic DUI drivers like they do in other states.
May 12, 2008
12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
One poster says illegals will go to a high speed chase. Another says they will just buy another car. Still another says they will steal another identity.
You may all be right. I don't see a clunker outrunning police or even getting up the speed to start a run. Stealing an identity just to drive a car might sound good but effort and risk attend to that so it would not be a practical alternative. Stolen identification is getting much riskier and more difficult as people take steps to protect identity and identify risks.
Buying another car is one realistic solution but is it financially possible for most who would be at risk? I think the solution here would be (for the driver) to buy another car and, if they can obtain a legal license, pay for registration and insurance to prevent a repeat.
The most realistic solution for those who are illegally here and thumbing their noses at laws would be to stay out of Denver. If other cities see this as successful, they might decide to stay/move out of Colorado.
As for selling the vehicles....thousands of cars are towed by the police every year. Cities have different standards and statutes but all of them have a time limit for a person to claim a vehicle. Cars are sold after that limit. Cars towed under this ordnance would be no different from those towed for DUI drivers or other lawbreakers.
Lastly, the monies collected from storage/towing fees are shared with the state/city under the contracts between them and the tow companies. Tow companies would line up and sign over a great deal more of their charges to cities in order to gain the volume business.
We had our car towed because it was parked illegally (not completely in our driveway by twenty inches on a cul-de-sac). The cost to us was two days storage and towing totaling three hundred dollars. We don't make that mistake any more.
The driver can redeem the car by posting a bond and proving legal residence. I'm sure many illegal drivers will be caught in the first days after passage. After that, the number will diminish as illegal residents avoid Denver. This is a sensible result. It will still catch a lot of citizens who provide the same danger as the illegals for the same reasons: no insurance/registration/legal license.
If the car is legally owned by a person with a license and insurance, the owner may post a bond with the city. If the car isn't driven by an illegal driver (this includes citizens who don't have a license) the bond will be returned at the end of one year. If an illegal driver is caught driving a car the bond is forfeited. This will cause a great deal of trouble for those who have "gotten around" the law when a DUI driver loses a license and re-registers the vehicle in a spouse's name. I'm guessing that more citizens than illegals would be hurt by that requirement so this won't only make us safer from illegal aliens on the road.
Pass it and watch for results.
May 12, 2008
1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Doesn't Denver city law also state you're supposed to register your dog? Doesn't it require people owning a bicycle to register their bike? So, when there's no registration for either, would you also advocate that the police confiscate your bicycle and sell it in auction, or to take your dog away from you and put it in a shelter for adoption, unless you can pay hundreds for each day the dog's in? While I'm not against keeping unregistered drivers off the road, this simple idea won't prevent that. It doesn't take a current license to buy a vehicle, does it? But hey, anyone for government seizing private property may get more than they want. Big Brother!
May 12, 2008
3:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
rip_vw32 writes:
Okay... So I have a question... I keep my registration and insurance and license in my wallet (you are supposed to keep them on you, not necessarly in your car but with you at all times). My wallet gets stolen in Denver. So you guys are saying I am not allowed to drive my truck back home or if I do and get pulled over, I lose my truck?? So how exactly would I get there then? there are no busses, and it is 50 miles out there. so what is the solution? This law is poorly thought out, really poorly thought out. I am all for getting illegals out, but at what cost? My own vehicle? What if the illegal getting pulled over is driving my stolen car (as posted by father murphy)? He loses his car simply because it was stolen by an illegal immigrant? Listen, giving the DPD the ability to make common sense choices is the right way to go, not force them to make a potentially bad decision. As it stands right now, they CAN impound it if they deem it necessary. Truth is, having a license is not a right, nor is owning a car; however freedom from unlawful search and/or seizure is. I do not want my car impounded because I was a victim of a theft... kinda like making me a victim twice... And it is a very real possiblity that someone like me who keeps everything in thier wallet loses it, then what? I am an illegal? a non-citizen? Not a chance in h-e-double hockystick! ;)
May 12, 2008
7 p.m.
Suggest removal
FutureDenver writes:
After more thought regarding at least two outrightly false statements made by the the RMN's mystery writers in this story, I'd like to know a few legalities regarding a newspaper's own editorials. This is an initiated ordinance to be voted on this August 12th in Denver. It took nearly $11,000 to place this on the ballot. Does the RMN have the legal right to lie about it or even to grossly mislead their readers? Aren't they indulging in the act of "electioneering", an act politicians are prohibited from doing? Shouldn't they, a newspaper in a position of public trust, be held to a higher standard than say a CMTE organized to oppose this issue? We intend to find out! Stay tuned.
May 13, 2008
6:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
rip_vw32
If you lost those documents and your wallet you would make a police report. (I recommend memorizing your drivers' license number) With that report there will be a time and a date on file. You can safely drive for a reasonable amount of time until you replace the documents. This is the part that would be considered alternate documentation.
Should a thief be stopped while driving your car, you have already filed a police report that will enable the police to return your vehicle. Towing and storage fees are paid by your insurance company if you have full insurance and the city will usually NOT charge you for the days the vehicle was stored prior to your
notification of recovery. This is part of my insurance. Check to see if it is part of yours.
And, for the poster who brought dogs and bicycles in to muddy the water, neither dogs nor bicycles have caused the damage that an unlicensed driver can cause. A DUI doggy just can't get enough speed up to disable your car. The point of this is that cars can be and are towed for many other offenses and this ordinance will permit the police to tow cars that, when stopped, are driven by an unlicensed driver. These drivers commonly lack insurance and many cars remain unregistered for months or years. A neighbor bragged as he showed off his new 08 plate tag. He pulled it off of a car in a parking lot. He brags, unprovable, that he has only paid one registration fee in ten years because his car failed emissions.
The situation becomes much worse when the driver is an illegal immigrant. Many have no insurance but also no incentive to get any. DUI drivers commonly re-register vehicles in a spouse's name or a friends and pay the insurance for that person's driving record while they keep driving illegally. It's not their car so most friends don't know, until it happens, that their insurance will skyrocket if the drunk is caught driving in "their" car.
We were rear ended by a pickup truck at a stoplight. There was little damage to the car and some to the truck but the man was totally panicked. We called the police. While we waited he begged us to let him go. He offered several hundred dollar bills. That's when we got suspicious. The police arrested him. He was driving a "friends" truck without insurance or a valid license. He was given a ticket and the police watched him call for a friend to pick him up then left. We were going to a nearby coffee shop so we watched. As soon as we turned the corner and entered the parking lot, the driver got back in his truck and left.
May 13, 2008
9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
Lowtaxequalsfreedom,Are you advocating the State confinscate private property and then sale it to make a profit? Are you sure you are an anarchist? Maybe you are a spray paint, window breaking socialist?
I am advocating the state taking steps to protect its citizens, if you merely forget your license you can easily redeem it, so it isnt forfitted, its merely stored for a period until you are able to show you do have the legal priveldge to operate it, if not, then why shouldnt My tax burden be reduced? Window breaking, not since I stopped hitting the softball into windows, socialist, no, Nancy Pelosi is the poster child for My anarchy, I do admit to using spray paint, usually on lawn furniture, and I am required to have identification to legally purchase it, much the same as I need to have to drive, its a priveledge, one I have had revoked, not an entitlement, I learned, maybe if the police towed a few cars for no drivers license or otherwise being able to show identity, maybe next time you would remember it?
May 13, 2008
11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
pmyers, the law is the law, isn't it? Haven't you ever heard of dogs attacking people, and isn't it possible that some of those dogs are unregistered? So it only matters if it's related to a car but not bikes or dogs. How convenient to selectively apply the law! It goes back to the problem I have with it, Big Brother seizing property. It's a part of the reason we broke off with England in the first place, and it's why we're not a socialist country either. But hey, if you're for private property being seized, I'm sure the government would like you.
rip, you make a good point. And the poster that said you can file a police report..... what happens if a person doesn't know their wallet or purse was lost or stolen, or that their vehicle was stolen? What if that vehicle was stolen in a storage facility and shortly thereafter pulled over, hence no registration or insurance? An absolute law like this doesn't differentiate between rights and wrongs to the owners. Also, once the door's opened....... what would be next? If they don't like the condition the car's in, should it be seized? If the month and year stickers are reversed, should it be seized? If the front plate is missing, despite state law that says there's supposed to be one, should the vehicle be seized? If the doors don't lock, and make it easier for a thief to steal it, should the vehicle be seized? Since an owner isn't supposed to leave a running vehicle unattended, should it be seized? Once the door's open.....
Think about this, if you own a house and rent it out, and the renters are selling drugs there without you knowing, the government can seize your house and there's nothing you can do about it. Is that fair? No, but a law is a law.
The right thing might be to have the vehicle towed and impounded for no insurance or current registration, until they are provided and fees are paid. Seizing vehicles and auctioning them probably wouldn't bring much revenue when the cost of towing and storage become involved.
May 14, 2008
7:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
Cwillyrun1 posted in part "The right thing might be to have the vehicle towed and impounded for no insurance or current registration, until they are provided and fees are paid. Seizing vehicles and auctioning them probably wouldn't bring much revenue when the cost of towing and storage become involved." Cwillyrun1,I agree, I would want it to provide for a due process, My dog is licensed, so is My bike, and My truck, My choice, comply with the rules or face the consequences, all I want is the the rest of the community to follow, or to face those consequences as I would. You claim this isnt a socialist country, W.P.A. wasn't welfare, or an entitlement program, since LBJ in the 60's we have slid more and more towards socialism, ask Comrade Nancy Pelosi. I agree that the funds from auctions wouldn't barely cover the costs, but every little bit helps.
May 14, 2008
11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
Cwillyrun1
The law DOES call for towing and impounding. The sale of the vehicle only happens if the owner of the car fails to provide a valid proof of legal license, insurance and registration. The owner of a car that is driven illegally may post a bond and will receive the bond back if the vehicle is not driven by an illegal driver in a year.
Dogs that bite or injure people are seized immediately. Bikers that cause damage can have their bikes confiscated if they still resemble a bike that is.
I am a complete capitalist. The reason I support this law is that I have seen for myself what damage uninsured and unregistered drivers cause. I saw dozens of files at the Yellow Cab safety office where, after an unlicensed driver had had an accident with a taxi, the officers ticketed drivers for the offense and set a court date. In one of those files is the accident I had.
I was stopped on Colorado Blvd. at 8th Ave. The car rear-ended me and destroyed my vehicle. I was transported to Colorado General Hospital and the officers took my report in the ER. I asked what happened to the other driver. (I had a badly broken leg, dislocated wrists (both of them) a bruised head and a badly bruised knee. I couldn't work for three months so Colorado Workman's comp paid a high price. The woman who hit me was drunk and her car was totaled. She was unhurt. She received tickets for DUI, expired license, no registration and, I think, no insurance. I showed up for her court date. She didn't.
Today we would be outraged that she wasn't arrested. That's because we passed laws about drunk driving. (those have gone too far now I think) That is what this law is all about. Police can't just assume that people who don't have a legal license, registration or insurance will just start riding the bus.
Impounding the cars of scofflaws is extremely fair to all. Mistakes should be considered. They also provide a fantastic learning experience albeit an expensive one.
This law gets the cars illegal drivers are using off of the streets. It might be a bit too flexible, especially if Hickenlooper gets orders to out to let the illegals break another law.
In all law enforcement situations, one of the first things police want to do is remove the weapon(s) from the lawbreaker. This law would do that. The only confiscation would be if the people were unable or refuse to provide the proper documents. The end result is safer streets. And maybe another vehicle for my husband. He's not allowed to drive mine. Give it a try.