January 25, 2007

Ask The Lawyer

Driving without valid driver’s license = vehicle impoundment for up to 30 days

This week's question:
I was having a cocktail with a girl friend of mine the other evening and she was telling me that if I were arrested by the San Jose Police for driving without a driver's license that my car could be locked up, towed away, and even impounded for 30 days. Is this true? This is outrageous! You would think this is Russia or something! Please tell me about this right away.

Nicole N.
Almaden Valley


Dear Nicole,
I'm afraid your friend is right. Of course, we all know that you shouldn't drink and drive, but the law about seizure and impoundment of the vehicle for up to 30 days for driving without a driver's license puts some teeth into the law. And the law was just upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The case is entitled Samples v. Brown, and it was decided by the First District Court of Appeal on January 11, 2007. (For my attorney friends, the citation is 06 C.D.O.S. 431.) The case arose in Sonoma County.

In short, the Court held that statutes permitting the impoundment of vehicles driven by unlicensed drivers or used in dangerous activities such as speed contests are constitutional.

The two statutes involved were California Vehicle Code §14602.6 and §23109.2. Although the trial court found the two provisions unconstitutional, the Court of Appeal said they were OK and passed constitutional muster. (The California Supreme Court may still rule on the issues involved.)

The first statute, CVC §14602.6 authorizes and regulates the impoundment of vehicles driven by persons without valid driver's licenses. If a person is driving a vehicle without a valid license or in violation of a driving restriction, a peace officer is authorized to arrest the person and seize the vehicle and the "vehicle so impounded shall be impounded for 30 days."

The registered and legal owner of a vehicle that is removed and seized under subdivision (a) or their agents shall be provided the opportunity for a storage hearing to determine the validity of, or consider any "mitigating circumstances" attendant to, the storage.

In certain circumstances, the impounded vehicle must be released to its registered owner, such as when the vehicle has been stolen or when the driver reinstates his or her driver's license or acquires a driver's license and proper insurance.

Certain other provisions apply to motor vehicle dealers, banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions as well as rental car agencies.

The second statute, California Vehicle §23109.2, authorizes and regulates the seizure and impoundment of a vehicle involved in a speed contest. This statute provides that when a peace officer determines that a person was engaged in such an activity, his or her motor vehicle may be seized and "[a] motor vehicle so seized may be impounded for not more than 30 days."

As with the first statute, a registered and legal owner of a vehicle seized pursuant to this law are entitled to a storage hearing to determine the validity of the impoundment.

Also as with the first statute, the vehicle shall be released in certain circumstances, including when the vehicle was stolen, the registered owner did not authorize the person involved in the speed contest to use the vehicle, when the vehicle is owned by a rental car agency, or when criminal charges for engaging in a speed contest or other unauthorized activity are not filed or are dismissed.

In the ruling, the Court of Appeal found that the statutes were not unconstitutional in that the phrase "mitigating circumstances" was not unconstitutionally vague. And the Court also found no violation of the separation of powers doctrine.

You can read the Samples v. Brown case yourself by going online to http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A112343.PDF. This is the California Court of Appeal web site where you can view and print out the case if you wish. You can even do so without putting up with all the junk email and getting on multiple advertising lists.

So, good luck Nicole. I hope you don't drink and drive and I would recommend always and without exception having a valid driver's license.

Donald J. DeVries
Almaden Valley


Donald J. DeVries is an attorney practicing law in Almaden Valley. If you would like him to answer your question in his next Almaden Times column, you can reach him by e-mail at don@almadenvalleylawyers.com, fax at (408) 268-6502, telephone at (408) 268-9500, or mail at, 6475 Camden Avenue, Suite 200, San Jose, CA 95120. Your matters are personal and private, so of course, he will not disclose your identity or any details about your situation. To view Almaden Times columns since 1986 visit www.almadenvalleylawyers.com. DeVries writes this column to provide you with general information about important legal matters affecting California residents—not to give you legal advice about your specific matter. No attorney-client relationship is created by these articles. The law is complex and constantly changing and varies from state to state. So you should consult an attorney before taking any action that would affect your personal or business matters.