Note: This column has been updated with comments from an aide to Assemblyman Michael Allen.
Santa Rosa Assemblyman Michael Allen’s legislation that would have limited police impounds of cars at DUI/license checkpoints has taken a turn in the state Senate.
The impoundment provision has been dropped from Assembly Bill 1389 and what remains is language that would require that DUI checkpoints to be conducted uniformly around the state and would require police to give at least 48 hours notice of a checkpoint’s location. An Allen aide said the impoundment aspect was shifted to a different bill, AB 353.
Allen, a Democrat, had introduced his bill after being approached by social action committees from local churches about the fear Latinos have at the checkpoints and the possible impoundment of their cars for not having licenses. He has said his research showed police around the state were inconsistent in their checkpoint policies and some were using checkpoints to generate income for their cities.
State law now allows a police officer to immediately arrest a driver and impound her/her car if the driver doesn’t have a driver’s license or is driving with a suspended or invalid license. Allen’s bill would have stopped police from impounding cars in these cases except in very limited cases, such as the car was used to commit a crime or contained evidence of a crime.
Instead of impoundment, an officer under Allen’s bill would have to allow the driver to turn the car over to a friend, relative, neighbor or someone else with a valid license; allow the driver to park the car in a safe place for a licensed driver to come; or permit the officer “to readily and lawfully remove the vehicle to a place that does not impede traffic or threaten public safety.” If none of these could be achieved, then the bill would have allowed the car to be impounded.
The Assembly approved his bill 54-22 in May.
But all of those impoundment provisions were dropped from Allen’s bill in the Senate, and the surviving part of the bill now awaits possible action on the Senate floor.
Allen aide David Miller said Allen and Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, decided to team up on the impoundment issue and to become joint authors of AB 353 to address police impoundments.
AB 353, which is pending in the Senate, would limit the impounding of cars of unlicensed drivers at DUI checkpoints if the car wasn’t used in a crime, other than being driven by an unlicensed driver. Under the bill, a car couldn’t be impounded if a licensed driver was available, then or later, or an officer was able to park the car in a place that does not impede traffic or threaten public safety.
As per their agreement, “AB 1389 would remain Assembly Member Allen’s bill and now deals only with DUI checkpoints,” Miller said. “The two Assembly members felt it was appropriate to have two bills addressing the two issues separately.”
Another change in Allen’s bill involves publicizing the location of checkpoints in advance. Allen early on had wanted police to cite the actual location but his bill was amended in the Assembly to “general location.” In the version in the Senate, the word “general” was deleted, apparently in a desire to require police to be more specific on locations.
But Miller said publicizing locations remains “subject of ongoing negotiations with law enforcement and social justice groups. Assembly Member Allen wants to make sure that his bill helps ensure that sobriety checkpoints focus on drunk drivers. Studies have shown that giving notice is helpful in deterring some instances of drunk driving. However, determining the type of notification — general, specific or other possible options — is part of ongoing discussions.”
Impoundment of cars has been quite controversial in Sonoma County, with some groups saying it unfairly targets illegal immigrants who are prohibited from having California driver’s licenses.
Allen’s bill had been supported by several activist groups, such as the ACLU, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and North Bay Organizing Project.
Opposition included several police organizations, such as the California District Attorneys Association and California Police Chiefs Association; MADD; and the city of Fresno.
To read Press Democrat editorial writer Jim Sweeney’s perspective on the issue, CLICK HERE
Follow the Road Warrior on Twitter @PDRoadWarrior.
