Washington Appeals Court Upholds Mandatory Vehicle Impounds
Washington state’s second highest court endorsed the growing municipal practice of using extended vehicle impound periods to rack up fees. The a three-judge court of appeals panel considered the question in the context of whether Raymond Mann’s vehicle was rightly taken for thirty days by Kent police on March 13, 2009.
A police officer had run Mann’s license plate and discovered his driver’s license had been suspended. Mann was arrested and his car towed away and stored. Washington statutes provide that a vehicle “may be held for up to thirty days” if driven by someone with a suspended license. Mann requested a hearing in Kent municipal court and successfully argued that the city’s impound ordinance was unlawful because it failed to give the police officer at the scene discretion to reduce the period of impound. The court ordered the car released. The city appealed, and the King County Superior Court agreed the city ordinance violated state law. The city appealed again, and this time the court of appeals upheld Kent’s procedures.
“We hold that the ordinance is a valid exercise of the city’s authority under the impoundment statute,” appeals court Judge Michael S. Spearman wrote. “The statute’s plain language permits the vehicle to be held for up to a specified number of days ‘at the written direction of the agency ordering the vehicle impounded.'”
The appeals court disagreed with the lower court rulings that found the ordinance’s use of mandatory periods conflicted with the flexibility found in the word “may.” The lower courts were influenced by a 2002 state supreme court finding that found a Washington State Patrol regulation that imposed mandatory impoundment in all cases exceeded the authority granted under state law.
“The statute simply states that the agency may not hold a vehicle for more than the applicable number of days, and that it must provide written direction, Spearman wrote. “Other than the maximum impoundment periods set forth in the statute, there is nothing in the statute’s language from which we can discern a legislative intent to limit a municipality’s discretion regarding the period of impoundment… local impoundment ordinances must permit an officer to exercise discretion over the initial decision to impound. But after a vehicle is impounded, an ordinance may impose fixed, mandatory periods of impoundment, consistent with RCW 46.55.120(1)(a).”
The decision is good news for municipalities and private towing firms that charge a minimum of $174 per impound. On top of this, storage fees run $39 per day — or $1170 for the mandatory thirty-day period.
A copy of the decision is available in an 80k PDF file at the source link below.
City of Kent v. Mann (Court of Appeals, State of Washington, 4/11/2011)
[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]
More by The Newspaper
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- Jrhurren Worked in Detroit 18 years, live 20 minutes away. Ren Cen is a gem, but a very terrible design inside. I’m surprised GM stuck it out as long as they did there.
- Carson D I thought that this was going to be a comparison of BFGoodrich's different truck tires.
- Tassos Jong-iL North Korea is saving pokemon cards and amibos to buy GM in 10 years, we hope.
- Formula m Same as Ford, withholding billions in development because they want to rearrange the furniture.
- EV-Guy I would care more about the Detroit downtown core. Who else would possibly be able to occupy this space? GM bought this complex - correct? If they can't fill it, how do they find tenants that can? Is the plan to just tear it down and sell to developers?
Comments
Join the conversation
In this situation, a driver is dealing with two different entities, the government bureaucracy and the towing/storage company. I wonder if I should be looking to set up one of the latter, pick up some unused land, fence it, and get in cahoots with the local sheriff. Then I make money hand over fist off each impounded car for thirty days, and there's a good chance that the owner doesn't or can't pay my fees; then I can sell it and get the money that way. Sounds like a heckuva deal to me. I find it harder and harder to rebut the presumption that my county, state, and federal governments see me as a profit center....
Used to be, in Michigan, the state and the insurance companies were in a sort of collusion to get your money. The state would assign points to traffic tickets, and the insurance companies would use the points to raise your rates. Then, the state realized that they could muscle the insurance companies out of that racket by charging extra nt to issue points. That's right, fior a fee, the state will waive the points for speeding, etc. Thus the state collects the money that the insurance companies would have colleted. Sort of like to Mafia gangs involved in a turf war. Bob