Is this a lawful order?

marchboom · 03-26-2012, 13:32

LAPD Chief Beck is still standing by his decision to violate the law and NOT impound vehicles from unlicensed drivers when they're stopped. He says that because most of the people who are having their cars impounded are illegally in this country, it is not fair to them. I could be wrong but I feel confident that he is following the ORDERS of the racist, illegal alien loving LA mayor.

The Los Angeles D.A.'s office as told the chief that the chief's decision would violate the law.

Now the big question: Can the chief order his officers to also violate the law? When the officers take their oath of office they swear to obey the LAWFUL orders of their superiors.

This should be interesting.

packsaddle · 03-26-2012, 15:12

official misconduct.

trdvet · 03-26-2012, 15:39

Does CA state law say that you shall tow the vehicle if the person is unlicensed?

dano1427 · 03-26-2012, 16:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by trdvet

Does CA state law say that you shall tow the vehicle if the person is unlicensed?

Nope.

trdvet · 03-26-2012, 15:56

Hmmmmmm.......

Quote:

Under its terms, unlicensed drivers who meet several requirements — including having auto insurance, valid identification and no previous citations for unlicensed driving — will still have their cars impounded but no longer face a 30-day hold, with fines that now often exceed $1,200.

The new rules will permit drivers to immediately collect their vehicles from impound as long as they are the registered owner and come with a licensed driver. They would pay the regular storage fee of $38.50 per day plus a one-time fee of $228.

Officers will be instructed to forgo impounding a vehicle altogether in some cases if a licensed driver is in the car or able to arrive “immediately.” Drivers who do not satisfy the requirements, or who are caught driving on revoked or suspended licenses, will have their vehicles held for the 30 days.

longhaulcop · 03-26-2012, 16:16

Exactly whats the one time fee of $228 for?

A6Gator · 03-26-2012, 18:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by longhaulcop

Exactly whats the one time fee of $228 for?

Tax disguised as a one-time fee.

Patchman · 03-26-2012, 16:45

In the most benign case of an unlicensed driver, parent (licensed driver) is teaching 16 child to drive. Child does not have a learner's permit yet.

Or a driver who only has a learner's permit is driving alone (Rules require accompanied by a licensed driver) or driving (with a licensed driver) after hours.

Does LE really need to impound car?

trdvet · 03-26-2012, 16:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patchman

In the most benign case of an unlicensed driver, parent (licensed driver) is teaching 16 child to drive. Child does not have a learner's permit yet.

Or a driver who only has a learner's permit is driving alone (Rules require accompanied by a licensed driver) or driving (with a licensed driver) after hours.

Does LE really need to impound car?

No, you would have to be a cold blooded mofo, i.e. a Trooper

Vigilant · 03-26-2012, 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by trdvet

No, you would have to be a cold blooded mofo, i.e. a Trooper

Or a Motor Cop..

trdvet · 03-26-2012, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vigilant

Or a Motor Cop..

What if you're a Trooper who is in motors?

KiloBravo · 03-26-2012, 17:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by trdvet

No, you would have to be a cold blooded mofo, i.e. a Trooper

Does this apply to hopeful near future Troopers?

trdvet · 03-26-2012, 20:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeerPredator

Does this apply to hopeful near future Troopers?

People with a slot to an academy are so gung ho their heads are ready to pop. They'll get up in the middle of the night to make sure their boots are still polished

The biggest thing they won't teach you in the academy is discretion.

KiloBravo · 03-27-2012, 03:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by trdvet

People with a slot to an academy are so gung ho their heads are ready to pop. They'll get up in the middle of the night to make sure their boots are still polished

The biggest thing they won't teach you in the academy is discretion.

LOL! I just read that after waking up three hours earlier than usual this morning. I am trying to get on the academy schedule this week by doing my workouts and runs at 5AM.

I will keep the discretion thing inkind. Thank you.

RocPO · 03-26-2012, 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patchman

In the most benign case of an unlicensed driver, parent (licensed driver) is teaching 16 child to drive. Child does not have a learner's permit yet.

Or a driver who only has a learner's permit is driving alone (Rules require accompanied by a licensed driver) or driving (with a licensed driver) after hours.

Does LE really need to impound car?

I would absolutely impound the car. The kid has no legal basis in which to operate a vehicle on a public street. On private property is another story all together. What happens if junior is operating the vehicle and causes a crash, or injures someone?

Same with operating with only a learner's permit. You know you have restrictions that come with that permit. Requiring a licensed driver to accompany you is one of those restrictions. Your inability to follow the law is not my problem.

blueiron · 03-26-2012, 18:07

Whether it is a lawful order is up to California Courts, not for individual officers/deputies/highway patrol to decide.

The law and the regulation cause no egregious breach of moral code and therefore, sworn LAPD officers are going to have to enforce it under penalty of official employment sanction if the chief elects to impose his authority. Breaking a commonly accepted moral or ethical code that shocks the consciousness imparts the Right to disobedience.

Ohio Copper · 03-26-2012, 17:11

I've hooked cars that were driven by 30 year olds with expires learners permit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patchman

In the most benign case of an unlicensed driver, parent (licensed driver) is teaching 16 child to drive. Child does not have a learner's permit yet.

Or a driver who only has a learner's permit is driving alone (Rules require accompanied by a licensed driver) or driving (with a licensed driver) after hours.

Does LE really need to impound car?

Sent from my Calculator.

collim1 · 03-26-2012, 19:54

My state law says that I SHALL tow any driver's vehicle who is suspended for DUI or revoked for any reason, yet my chief does not allow it. We only tow for felony investigations, and 99% of the time another officer drives it in to avoid a tow fee.

CW Mock · 03-26-2012, 20:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by trdvet

What if you're a Trooper who is in motors?

Then you definitely have no soul. :D

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

4teecal · 03-27-2012, 01:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by CW Mock

Then you definitely have no soul. :D

We are the riding dead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ateamer · 03-26-2012, 23:33

The order is absolutely lawful. Vehicle Code section 14602.6 clearly says that officers MAY do a 30-day, not SHALL. A police chief has the authority to place limits on his officers that are tighter than what the law is.

I completely disagree with his policy. Unlicensed and suspended drivers' cars need to go to car jail. Chief Beck's policy is stupid, but it is legal.

DaBigBR · 03-27-2012, 09:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by marchboom

LAPD Chief Beck is still standing by his decision to violate the law and NOT impound vehicles from unlicensed drivers when they're stopped. He says that because most of the people who are having their cars impounded are illegally in this country, it is not fair to them. I could be wrong but I feel confident that he is following the ORDERS of the racist, illegal alien loving LA mayor.

The Los Angeles D.A.'s office as told the chief that the chief's decision would violate the law.

Now the big question: Can the chief order his officers to also violate the law? When the officers take their oath of office they swear to obey the LAWFUL orders of their superiors.

This should be interesting.

We get it. You don't like the mayor and you don't like Beck. Here we are in at least the 5th thread that you've started in Cop Talk on the topic. Did we really need another?

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1403806
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1390194
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1388645
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1328258

At least you're in Idaho, where it won't directly effect you.

marchboom · 03-27-2012, 11:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBigBR

We get it. You don't like the mayor and you don't like Beck. Here we are in at least the 5th thread that you've started in Cop Talk on the topic. Did we really need another?

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1403806
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1390194
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1388645
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1328258

At least you're in Idaho, where it won't directly effect you.

I never said I didn't like the chief. In fact, I think he's a good chief. A lot better than the last 3 chiefs. But with this issue he is dead wrong and I think he was ordered to support the mayor's demands.

As far as the mayor is concerned, I detest him. Extremely liberal, supports illegal aliens and their residence in this country and he wants to circumvent the law to protect them.

And you know what? I just might post another thread about this issue. That OK with you?

DaBigBR · 03-27-2012, 12:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by marchboom

I never said I didn't like the chief. In fact, I think he's a good chief. A lot better than the last 3 chiefs. But with this issue he is dead wrong and I think he was ordered to support the mayor's demands.

As far as the mayor is concerned, I detest him. Extremely liberal, supports illegal aliens and their residence in this country and he wants to circumvent the law to protect them.

And you know what? I just might post another thread about this issue. That OK with you?

You certainly don't need my permission to look like a spamming blowhard with a bone to pick.

marchboom · 03-27-2012, 12:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBigBR

You certainly don't need my permission to look like a spamming blowhard with a bone to pick.

Who sh&t in your chili? Something here must be hitting a sore point with you. If you don't like what I post, don't read it. It's just that simple. This is a forum where we post issues that we want to discuss. We don't need anyone's approval to do so.