The state Supreme Court has let stand a lower court ruling that upheld the Los Angeles Police Department’s Special Order 7, which liberalized procedures for impounding vehicles of unlicensed drivers.
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge struck down the policy in 2013, saying it conflicted with the state’s motor vehicle code. The policy was opposed by the government watchdog group Judicial Watch and the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union that represents LAPD officers.
In December, however, an appeals court panel upheld the policy, saying LAPD Chief Charlie Beck had properly acted within his authority when issuing the directive. Opponents of the policy appealed to the state Supreme Court, which last month declined to hear the case.
“By allowing a court of appeal decision to stand, the Supreme Court recognized that the changes spelled out in Special Order 7 do not conflict with existing laws, nor do they undermine the vehicle code,” said Hector Villagra, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California. “What Special Order 7 does is simply direct officers on how to apply the vehicle-impound laws without creating an unfair hardship on poor immigrant residents, or creating the perception of profiling of Latinos in an effort to impound vehicles.”
Special Order 7 was aimed at lessening the financial burden on drivers who have their cars impounded for as long as month for driving without a valid license. In February 2012, the Police Commission, which provides civilian oversight of the LAPD, approved the policy to allow an unlicensed driver who is stopped for a moving violation, and who has valid identification, car registration, proof of insurance and a clean driving record, to avoid a mandatory 30-day impound of his or her vehicle.
A driver who was at fault in a crash, or had a prior conviction for driving unlicensed, does not qualify for a shortened one-day impound. The policy went into effect in April 2012.
Judicial Watch, which claimed policy conflicted with the state vehicle code. The Los Angeles Police Protective League, also filed suit, claiming the policy prevented uniform enforcement of state impound rules.
— City News Service