I can't decide if this is odd, dumb, or both. But, how about this: if you are stopped at a DUI checkpoint and don't have a license, your car is subsequently towed (that's legal under California's vehicle code). However, LAPD will NOT tow your vehicle if . . . you're an illegal alien!

Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck announced Monday that his officers will no longer automatically tow the cars of illegal immigrant drivers stopped at sobriety checkpoints.

The policy comes in response to the concerns of Latino civil rights activists, who say impound fees are unfairly costing otherwise hardworking illegal immigrant drivers hundreds of dollars.

Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said his department impounds about 1,000 cars a year from illegal immigrants at sobriety checkpoints – not because they’re drunk but because they don’t have driver’s licenses.

“As we reviewed our impound policies it became obvious to me that they had disparate impact on individuals based on something that was entirely out of their control," Beck said.

Dear Chief Beck,

Here's something that is entirely within the control of illegal aliens: their location. They are in no way forced to be in the United States. In fact, they're not supposed to be here.

I know that to ascend the heights of the politicized LAPD you long ago had to have your spine removed, but I was not aware you voluntarily surrendered your mind too.

Best wishes on your future endeavors (I'm thinking retirement would be a good option),

Doctor Fate

Would they impound the car of legal residents without a US license?

It's not often I get the chance to be in wholehearted agreement with Steve, but this does seem remarkably crazy. If legal citizens get their cars impounded if they're caught driving without a licence then surely the same should apply to illegal immigrants, especially since they're probably driving without insurance as well which would make them a menace to other people's property.

I agree. Just checking on what actually happens in the non-illegal immigrant case.

And here's the bit below the part that was quoted:

California doesn’t issue driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants.

Under the new policy, officers will give unlicensed illegal immigrants “reasonable time” to find someone else to drive their cars home.

Right. So illegal immigrants cannot get a US license (but presumably they can have a foreign license, some of which are internationally recognised). Of course, yes they shouldn't be illegal.

But the second paragraph makes me wonder - what is a 'reasonable time', given that I would assume that they would not be allowed to park at the checkpoint for long? And I assume that the 'someone else' would need to have a license and be insured to drive.

It sounds wrong, but what is going to be the actual effect?

I agree too.

The cops shouldn't be stealing any cars.

danivon wrote:But the second paragraph makes me wonder - what is a 'reasonable time', given that I would assume that they would not be allowed to park at the checkpoint for long? And I assume that the 'someone else' would need to have a license and be insured to drive.

I have a somewhat educated guess. Certainly, as long as the checkpoint is up, the car would not be towed. However, I would think that the answer would be anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours, depending on the precise timing (earlier in the checkpoint operation, they would likely be less concerned about getting the car moved).

It sounds wrong, but what is going to be the actual effect?

Keeping uninsured, unlicensed drivers on the road.

Doctor Fate wrote:I have a somewhat educated guess. Certainly, as long as the checkpoint is up, the car would not be towed. However, I would think that the answer would be anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours, depending on the precise timing (earlier in the checkpoint operation, they would likely be less concerned about getting the car moved).

Sounds about right. Still I expect that a fair number would be impounded.

It sounds wrong, but what is going to be the actual effect?

Keeping uninsured, unlicensed drivers on the road.

Is that the actual effect as measured, or what you believe the effect to be. Surely we can only be sure of the actuality after it has happened?

I wonder if the first challenge to this will come from unlicensed but legally resident drivers who get caught? Hey, Vince, you want to be a test case?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I have a somewhat educated guess. Certainly, as long as the checkpoint is up, the car would not be towed. However, I would think that the answer would be anywhere from 30 minutes to several hours, depending on the precise timing (earlier in the checkpoint operation, they would likely be less concerned about getting the car moved).

Sounds about right. Still I expect that a fair number would be impounded.

Many less than previously had been. Plus, trust me, they (LAPD upper echelon) will be monitoring the numbers. If they don't go down substantially, there will be more "guidelines" issued that will lower the numbers. This is not policy; it's politics. When political correctness is adopted as policy, things will change--or heads will roll. The message will go out loud and clear: don't tow the vehicles of unlicensed illegal immigrants.

It sounds wrong, but what is going to be the actual effect?

Keeping uninsured, unlicensed drivers on the road.

Is that the actual effect as measured, or what you believe the effect to be. Surely we can only be sure of the actuality after it has happened?

Been there, done that. No, I can promise you when the chief goes public with something like this, it rolls down hill. The cops on the ground floor won't like it, but they won't put their heads in the chopping block.

I wonder if the first challenge to this will come from unlicensed but legally resident drivers who get caught? Hey, Vince, you want to be a test case?

Well, it is clearly an unequal application of the law . . .

Here's an idea
This is LA we are speaking of right?
Instead of towing the cars, just beat the living crap out of illegal drivers.
Then send them on their way with that "warning"
...I doubt they will be driving illegally any more.

and the sad part is while this is meant to be a bit humorous, I find myself agreeing with the idea to a certain (small) extent

Yeah, Tom, because police brutality is 'a bit humorous'!

How about they have car crushers at the checkpoints and the illegals can 'choose' to get out in time if they wish?

yes, it is funny
Black humor, Monty Python andthe Life of Brian? Making fun of Christianity and crucifictions, kind of sick, but funny. Same here, this Anthony wiener thing, sick and perverted, but funny in that black humor sort of way. Unless youhappen to be holier than though? You don't laugh at any black humor????

You, Tom, are no Monty Python. They didn't have to say they were trying to be funny. They also didn't immediately follow up with saying that crucifiction was ok.

and they also found plenty who complained it wasn't funny (even though it was in it's sick way)
but the sadest thing is you are trying to find fault in people you disagree with postings.
sad sad sad

Firstly, most of the complaints about Life of Brian came from people who hadn't seen it (and still there are a lot of misconceptions of what they were doing - Jesus himself is not attacked or lampooned, rather the people who distort and hijack his message are). A lot of the humour involved is idiomatically British and so I can see why it may not hit in the USA (and a lot of it isn't even about religion, some of the best stuff in the film is nothing to do with religion).

My point is that if you feel you need to tell us it's a joke (or explain why it's a joke), the chances are it wasn't that funny to start with. It's hard to do humour in text form, it so easily backfires and can look clumsy.

Secondly, it wasn't your humour that really irked me, it was the subsequent suggestion that you kind of agreed with the idea of the police beating up immigrants. Honest, I suppose, but the juxtaposition of that with making a joke about it (to me) rendered the joke itself unfunny.

I suppose the other thing about humour is that while sometimes it can be black or bleak, and can deal with controversial subjects, it can cross the line (to some) when the joke becomes about the putting the boot into someone who's already down. It's not just the subject matter, it's the way it is done.

I am no prude, but I don't see why I can't speak my mind. You think I was being oversensitive to mention it, well, I think you are being oversensitive in your reaction.

Now back to the subject...

Why are they automatically impounding anyone's car anyway? Everyone should get the same chance to have someone who can legally drive the car take it away. Impounding seems like a way to make money out of it. By all means prosecute the unlicensed and uninsured, and prevent them from driving at that point. So I was being serious about a challenge from legal residents.

(by the way, how easy is it to tell if someone is an illegal immigrant anyway? Do they have tattoos?)