Ruling on impounds restores rights

We were troubled to see a Superior Court judge criticized for ruling that when government summarily takes someone's property, it must comply with the Constitution's protection against unreasonable seizures. ("Appeal Unlicensed Driver Ruling," P-I editorial, May 19.)

This is the essence of Judge Michael Trickey's decision granting the appeals of five people who challenged the impoundment of their vehicles under Seattle's "Operation Impound."

"Operation Impound," the city's program to seize cars driven by people charged with (but not convicted of) Driving While License Suspended, tilts the scales heavily in favor of law enforcement. It turns the presumption of innocence on its head. It allows a police officer to punish an alleged criminal offender before he or she can set foot in a courtroom.

It penalizes the innocent with the guilty, and those with compelling mitigating circumstances as severely as inveterate scofflaws. It imposes an often-excessive punishment -- more than a third of cars impounded are auctioned at the tow yard because their owners cannot afford to get them back -- for a technical violation many drivers are not even aware they are committing.

Because impoundment is a "civil" penalty, indigent car owners whose vehicles are wrongly seized have no right to legal counsel. Judge Trickey's ruling was an important step toward bringing basic fairness and common sense to the impoundment program.

His decision does not preclude the police from impounding vehicles; it requires only that police officers consider available alternatives before seizing the car.

To understand why this principle is important, it helps to know the facts of some "Operation Impound" cases in which judges have found that impoundment was constitutionally unreasonable.

LeeRoy C. knew his own license had been suspended. He asked someone else to drive his car. He first inspected the man's license; it appeared valid. During their trip, another vehicle caused an accident damaging Mr. C.'s car. Although officers determined that the driver of Mr. C.'s car was not at fault in the accident, Department of Licensing records said his license was suspended. Mr. C. called a friend with a valid license and insurance, who offered to drive the car away. Officers refused to let her do so and impounded the car.

Edna B. knew that someone had been using her identity and had received traffic tickets that were reported to DOL in her name. She had discussed these tickets with DOL and was told that, prior to any suspension of her license, she would have a chance to challenge the tickets. There was just one problem: Whoever was using her name also changed her address with DOL. She never received the suspension notice sent by DOL. She explained this to the officer who told her he was going to impound her car. Someone with a valid license was available to drive the car away legally. The police officer nonetheless impounded the car. The P-I editorial invokes City Attorney Mark Sidran's threat to "lock people up" for DWLS instead of impounding cars, unless Judge Trickey's decision is overturned. But judges, not the city attorney, sentence DWLS defendants.

They rarely jail drivers with suspensions due to economic hardship, especially if they begin making payments on their fines. The editorial also assumes that suspended drivers would lack incentive to regain their license absent the threat of impoundment. Yet we know that one of the most significant obstacles to getting and keeping a living-wage job is not having a license.

Time payments for tickets and community service in lieu of fines have long been a rallying call of poor people and their advocates. In recent years, community organizations have been working with Seattle Municipal Court to help people regain their licenses. Investment in these programs is more cost-effective and fairer than summary impoundment.

The P- I editorial's most important mistake is to cast aspersions on a court decision requiring the police to follow the Constitution when taking people's property. It should not be controversial to protect fundamental rights.

Nick Licata is a member of the Seattle City Council. Lisa Daugaard is staff attorney for the Public Defender Association and counsel to the car owners who challenged the impoundment of their vehicles in King County Superior Court.

Add P-I Opinion headlines to