Distraught Father Fights Bill That Lets Unlicensed Drivers Keep Their Cars

tow-mater-cars.jpg
Happy cars
California State Assembly Bill 1993, introduced by San Francisco Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, would prohibit police officers from impounding or towing an unlicensed person's car if the car can be parked nearby or if a licensed driver can come and pick it up.

The idea behind the bill is that the current automatic 30-day impound penalty for unlicensed driving disproportionately punishes undocumented immigrants, who are not able to get a driver's license, and low-income people, who often lose their cars because they are unable to pay the impound fee. The practice has already been adopted in San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and Los Angeles.

But Don Rosenberg, whose 25-year-old son was killed by an unlicensed driver in November 2010, doesn't buy that argument.

"I understand your compassion for the hardship that not being able to get licensed causes these people," he wrote in a letter to Ma. "However, jeopardizing the lives, safety, and welfare of the law-abiding for those who have made a choice to illegally come to the United States is just wrong."

He cited his own experience:

On June 14, 2010, Roberto Galo was caught driving the wrong way on a one way street, driving without a license and driving without insurance. His car was impounded, only because he couldn't get a licensed driver to come pick it up. Less than 24 hours later he had his car back and continued to drive. On November 16, 2010 at the corner of Harrison and 16th street in San Francisco he struck and killed my son driving back and forth over his body 3 times trying to escape.

Indeed, though unlicensed drivers comprise 5 percent of the driving population, they are involved in 18 percent of fatal crashes, according to a AAA study released in November. And those crashes are far more likely to involve a driver who has never been licensed than a driver whose license was suspended or revoked.

This can create legal liabilities for cities, say opponents of the bill.

If an unlicensed driver gets pulled over, keeps his car, then gets into an accident, the municipality might be sued -- this happened to Solano County after an licensed driver, weeks removed from a traffic stop, crashed into a man's trailer.

The 30-day penalty, Rosenberg and others argue, is a just deterrent against unlicensed driving. For every unlicensed driver who can't afford to reclaim his car, there will be one less unlicensed driver on the road. This is the Los Angeles police union's stance, and it sued the department over the policy.

The issue, at least for those sympathetic to undocumented immigrants, is whether the 30-day impound penalty improves road safety to such an extent that justifies the hardship it throws at those immigrants. Ma argues that getting caught without a license shouldn't be much different than most other traffic violations, like lack of insurance or speeding, which amounts to a citation or a fix-it ticket.

While opponents of the bill claim that this is a step toward condoning unlicensed driving, it's inescapably an immigration quandary. In a sense, it is a conscious step in the opposite direction of Arizona and Alabama. While those states are going out of their way to make undocumented immigrants' lives worse, California would be going out of its way to make undocumented immigrants' lives better.

There are solutions outside of this particular legislative debate. Some opponents of this bill have declared that the win-win scenario is to let undocumented immigrants get driver's licenses.

Follow us on Twitter at @SFWeekly and @TheSnitchSF

My Voice Nation Help
8 comments
Big Riggs
Big Riggs

Who cares if the impound punishes illegals? Let them bitch and moan about it in their home country.

Kathleen3
Kathleen3

This criminal activity and further perpetuating this illegal alien invasion will continue until such time as Americans stand, en masse, and charge every and any elected or appointed official who does not uphold their oath of office, our Constitution, and federal law with gross and willful dereliction of duty. 

These people, entrusted by those of us who pay their salaries, are turning our country into the equivalent of the third world countries the illegal aliens left behind.  There is a thin line separating dereliction of duty from treason and far too many officials have crossed that line.

It is time to replace these corrupted politicians with public servants who well understand the only service these illegals are entitled to is a trip back to their home countries (preferably accompanied by the American elected officials who allowed them to roam our country with impunity).

Forums4Justice
Forums4Justice

CALIFORNIA SANCTUARY CITIESBell Gardens, CA City of Industry, CA City of Commerce, CA Cypress, CA Davis CA Downey, CA Fresno, CALakewood, CA Los Angeles, CALong Beach, CA Lynwood, CA Maywood, CA Montebello, CA National City, CA Norwalk, CA Oakland, CA Paramount, CA Pico Rivera, CA So. Gate, CA San Bernardino, Ca.San Diego, CA Santa Cruz, CA San Francisco, CASan Jose, CA Sonoma County, CA Tucson, CA Vernon, CA Watsonville, CAWilmington, CA 

Anon
Anon

Just so we are clear, this is the San Francisco Police Dept policy. Fiona Ma got the idea from us. When Gascon was chief (big shock), the "20 minute rule" came out. Our policy is that if the unlicensed driver has not had a prior 12500 CVC cite in the past # months, then they get to park the car legally and/or call a licensed driver to come get it.

So when I stop the Latin driver with what appears to be a consular ID card, he gets a pass. Nevermind how many times they have changed their name, or gotten a false consular card (since we have no way of checking other than visually). And that's when I began seeing the same licensed drivers continuing to show up to drive the unlicensed cars away.

It was about then I quit caring about traffic enforcement. If the brass doesn't mind a flagrant misdemeanor, why should I? And before you tell me that this is just to avoid S-Comm, a misdemeanor in SF gets you a ticket for a later court date, you don't go to jail.

Lawofland
Lawofland

OMG, parents everywhere can comprehend this mans anguish, losing a child for any reason is inconceivable.  And wholeheartedly support taking away cars from unlicensed drivers.  Everyone who pays for insurance is paying higher premiums because of undocumented and unlicensed drivers.  There have been times, when we had to choose between shelter & food or car & insurance, never once did we ever consider driving a car with out insurance. What reasoning makes undocumented people above the law of America?

Heather Mcneil
Heather Mcneil

It would be a win-win to let them get licenses.  Drivers' licenses should be merely and exactly that: a license to drive a vehicle after having proven the knowledge and skills required. 

It shouldn't be overloaded with other things, like having the privilege of getting a job, or buying alcohol, or getting government benefits.  When you add other constraints, you interfere with the original, fundamental, purpose.  This article illustrates that nicely.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

©2014 SF Weekly, LP, All rights reserved.
Loading...