Our correspondent Jack Dunphy in the Los Angeles Police Department has a very, ah, arresting post on PajamasMedia.
Los Angeles Police Department officers manning sobriety checkpoints will no longer, as a matter of department policy, impound cars driven by unlicensed drivers. That is unless the unlicensed driver is a United States citizen or lawful resident, in which case he can say adios to his car for 30 days, as authorized by California law …
The change in policy was announced last week by LAPD Chief Charlie Beck, who called it a question of “fairness” …
The new rules, Beck said, were an attempt to mitigate somewhat “the current reality, which is that for a vast number of people, who are a valuable asset to our community and who have very limited resources, their ability to live and work in L.A. is severely limited by their immigration status.”
Words fail me … though they have not failed the, so far, 209 commenters on Jack’s piece. As one of those commenters asks, rhetorically I think:
Can you get out of the impound by renouncing your citizenship on the spot?
When I think of all the trouble and expense I went to to get U.S. citizenship, I sometimes find myself wondering why I bothered. What next — a U.S. citizen only being counted as three-fifths of a person for apportionment purposes?
One of the pet phrases during the Clinton administration was "people who played by the rules..." Some rules are "fairer" than others I suppose.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTheir opportunities to live and work are so "severely limited" for illegal immigrants that there are vast numbers of them and the economy depends on them!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes the 14th Amendment still apply in Los Angeles?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBring on the equal protection lawsuits!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can't recall what number this would be on my 'Reasons to not live in California" list. Lawsuit, for sure were I a resident.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVictor Davis Hanson was right when he wrote about the Two Californias. I'm not surprised that Beck would pull a stunt like this. It's just another version of Special Order 40. I'm more suprised that we keep allowing it to happen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is insane. Insane. Isn't there an anti-ACLU that is willing to stick up for the rights of the groups in this country that the political/academic/media/professional elite despise (you know, the groups that comprise those classes): white/Asian straight men who are citizens?
It seems that, were there a group of litigators out to protect the rights of those "untouchables," they would have a pretty strong case against the LAPD. Find a white/Asian citizen whose car has been impounded after a DUI, and have him challenge the policy on the "undue" and "unfair" burdens it places on those of us cursed to have been born here or come here and played by the INS/ICE rules.
Pathetic. In our effete, self-abnegating and self-loathing post-modernism, we are getting to be worse than the French. How can a country built on self-guilt and embracing the Other while eliminating and hounding the Non-Other survive?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a case of the bureaucrats hiding under the fig-leaf of concern for the poor. I live in the San Fernando Valley. About 6 months ago I was cited for driving 50 in a "40" zone. The reality was I was doing 43 in a zone posted 45 miles per hour. I was incensed and fought it. It confirmed for me that people such as myself...clearly a upstanding citizen that pays her bills are targeted for tickets. We are easily handled in that we don't represent a threat to the police and they bank on our being too busy to deal with the convoluted process of "fighting city hall". Especially since you have to write the check up front anyway. Cheaper and easier to pay. I did fight it and win, but it cost me time, money and aggravation. All those impounded vehicles "of the poor" actually represent a net loss to the city, whereas "John Q Citizen" pays the check for not only the police department but all other city entities as well. Job security for "law enforcement"...a hell of an upended slap in the face to the lawful public. Just another way the wheels are off the cart in this upside-down pyramid we call American government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe logic (???) behind this is that because illegal immigrants can’t get a driver’s license, it would be “unfair” to impound their car.
So let’s take this logic and see where it takes us:
Blind people can’t get driver’s licenses either. So if an LA cop pulls Little Stevey Wonder over, he can cite him but not impound his car because that would be unfair.
5 year olds can’t get a license either, so if one is driving you have to let them go.
The possibilities are endless.
I’m glad I don’t live in California any more.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseConvicted felons cannot buy guns. So if the police come across a convicted felon with a gun, they should give him a free pass and concentrate their attention on those people with no criminal record who own guns without a license.
Really, it makes perfect sense!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere in the LA Times story does it say legals and illegals will be treated differently?
External Link
I don't see it in there. It looks to me like, regardless of immigration status, the police are not going to impound for unlicensed driving, unless there is no licensed driver nearby to drive the car away.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen you see an unbelievable claim, it's usually wise to double-check. Google is your friend. Here's the actual press release:
The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has announced revisions to the vehicle impound protocols utilized during Driving-Under-the-Influence (DUI) sobriety checkpoint operations.
The purpose of DUI checkpoints the Department conducts is to detect and apprehend those in the community who are driving while impaired by alcohol and/or drugs. DUI checkpoints are proven and effective public safety tools that save lives.
During DUI checkpoints, officers may encounter unlicensed drivers. When these situations occur, officers will attempt to identify the registered owner of the vehicle. If the registered owner is present or is able to respond to the scene within a reasonable period of time, the vehicle will be released to the registered owner, providing he or she is a licensed driver. If the registered owner is unlicensed, the owner may authorize release of the vehicle to a licensed driver at the scene, and the unlicensed driver will be issued a citation. When the vehicle cannot be released to a licensed driver, the vehicle will be impounded.
External Link
Where does it say that only cars of citizens can be impounded? Nowhere.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs always, in the interests of historical accuracy, let me point out that the 3/5 Compromise was an *anti* slavery measure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"When you see an unbelievable claim, it's usually wise to double-check. Google is your friend."
Perhaps you could take your own advice to heart and google the words of LAPD Chief Chalie Beck.
---------------
“The sad truth is that the people that were most impacted by this law were the people that could afford it the least – generally hardworking folks who are trying to make a life for themselves in the city of Los Angeles."
Beck said last year, officers working sobriety checkpoints impounded about 1,000 cars driven by undocumented immigrants who were not intoxicated or wanted by police. Overall, the LAPD impounded nearly 70,000 vehicles last year, but Beck said he’s not yet ready to extend the more lenient policy beyond the checkpoints.
He defended himself against critics who said his policy promotes illegal immigration.
“I rigorously enforce the law," the chief said. "The law gives me the option whether or not I impound that vehicle for 30 days. I am exercising that option because of the adverse impact of this law.”
The chief said unlicensed U.S. citizens and legal residents stopped at checkpoints will still see their cars impounded, because unlike undocumented immigrants they have the choice to get a license.
-----------------------
Hey, just think of me and google as your friends!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseflesner:
Google hardly exonerates the department. The chief's misguided sympathies are for the immigrants who "don't have a choice" to get a license. Perhaps...but they do have a choice to enter the U.S. illegally and they have a choice to drive a car in the U.S. If this law is resulting in "adverse impacts," perhaps the law should be changed. It is not for the police to selective enforce the law. And don't give me the line that they discretion...I'll bet they don't make the decision to let any legal citizens keep their cars. This is purely a political issue that the police are getting involved in--and it's not their role.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHas anybody thought to ask the Chief how he plans to enforce this new policy without racial profiling?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKind of like the end of days in the Tang Dynasty only with less sophistication and no poetry. A continuing cluster of "own goal" actions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI know that at checkpoints here, if you have to leave your car for any reason (including no drivers license), the officers will not let you park your car or move it to a safe location, it gets towed because it is "blocking traffic".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps they will implement this new rule, but nothing will change.