Voters in Denver, Colorado last Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a ballot measure that would have forced police to impound cars whenever a driver failed to produce a driver’s license. The measure was designed to expand a 2008 impound ordinance in a way that would have increased pressure on illegal immigrants. “They are responsible for about half of the fatal accidents and, of course, they are uninsured,” initiative sponsor Daniel Hayes argued. “Illegal aliens, like all unlicensed drivers, will be towed just as a domestic driver under suspension or revocation.”
The text of the initiative called for the immediate impounding of a vehicle — with no room for officer discretion — if its driver “may be reasonably suspected” of being an illegal alien. The punishment, however, would have also applied to any driver who had forgotten his wallet at home. Driving without “convincing corroborating identification” would have required impounding, stranding a properly licensed owner on the side of the road. The initiative would have boosted the penalty on forgetful owners to $200 plus a $120 towing fee, a $30 processing fee and $20 per day storage.
Others would have been forced to post a $2500 bond within thirty days for the release of the vehicle. Denver officials, including the mayor, police chief and city council, strongly opposed the initiative based on the experience with the 2008 initiative authorizing impounding with officer discretion.
Denver Police estimated the number of tows would have doubled from 15,732 in 2009 to 33,892 in 2010, requiring five more police officers to handle the work load. Overall, the department estimated increased enforcement costs of $1.6 million, not counting the revenue from the impounds. For a total of two months this year, the city’s impound lot reached the maximum capacity of 2200 cars and officers would only tow vehicles in cases where the vehicle was used as evidence of a crime.
“Under the proposal, drivers who simply forgot their identification will continue to be inconvenienced and police time tied up impounding vehicles for minor infractions and waiting for tow trucks instead of focusing on drivers who pose real public safety risks such as habitual traffic offenders or those driving under the influence,” the city council stated in a proclamation. “I-300 actually makes it tougher for innocent lien holders to recoup their business costs for a vehicle that is impounded through no fault of their own.”
On election day, 70 percent of voters rejected the initiative.
[courtesy thenewspaper.com]
Sounds like the only ones who voted for this were tow truck drivers.
A poorly-designed proposal with good intent. Maybe next time they can permit officer discretion and get it right.
I certainly support efforts to stop illegals driving along with anyone else that drives unlicensed and uninsured, however even all of us law-abiding citizens have forgotten our wallets a few times here and there. I agree, poorly-designed.
Illegal immigration needs to be addressed at the federal level and at the border. This band-aid approach will do little. Sadly, our corrupt and inept federal officials don’t have ther grapes to do what it takes to fix it. They’re too busy buying car companies and aiding and abetting corrupt unions.
Contrary to Contrarian, state and local ordinances have done much to discourage illegal immigration. Following enactment of various ordinances early in 2008, the NYT reported that there was evidence illegal immigrants were going back to Mexico (school attendance on the south side of the border was up, stuff like that).
still, I agree with Contrarian that illegal immigration needs to be addressed federally and at the border. they could start by requiring use of e-verify to check on all new hires, and not time limit it (as they have) to the next 3 years.
And I agree that this particular ordinance was misguided.
If you want to stop illegal immigration, you need to follow the money: in this case, to the people who hire, and often exploit, them as a workforce.
We need Bertel to comment on having to carry an Ausweis (or some American ID equivalent) when he was working in Germany. Obviously most Americans find the notion of a required ID card to be Orwellian, or socialist-meddling. But I don’t think people in Germany hold ID cards in the same level of contempt.
The law is poorly written in that it puts the emphasis on having the correct document, the physical drivers license, not on being present in the drivers license database. If someone forgot their drivers license, it should be simple enough for the arresting officer to check if the driver is present in the database based on a name, address, and basic physical description. I don’t have a problem with towing the car of someone who isn’t in the drivers license database, but in the 21st century it’s stupid to base ID entirely on a physical document.
We have some city ordinances in the Dallas suburbs that call for towing cars of people without insurance. Local laws that target illegal aliens appear to cause some self-deportation from the areas where they are passed.
http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2007/09/self-deportation-is-working.html
George, that article is from 2007. Got anything more recent? It would be interesting to see if the trend has actually continued.
George B is right on the money. If I can answer some security questions over the phone and get the password rest for my bank, I should be able to do it for a driver’s license check.
How hard would it be to verify height, eye color, DOB, address, etc.
What would happen is that everyone would make a copy of their DL and hide it in the car.
Like George, I don’t understand why they can’t just check their computers. I want uninsured drivers off the road.
A few fatalities/ lives destroyed are a small price to pay for cheap strawberries and maid services.