N.D.Cal.: City policy of towing and impounding vehicles for fees owed violated 4A of lessor

Plaintiff leased a vehicle to a motorist who got behind in payments. By the time it was ready to repossess, VW Credit found out that the city had the car towed and held by a towing company which refused to let VW repossess without paying [the excessive fee of] $4400 for towing and storage because the city had to approve. VW Credit stated a Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable retention of the car it owned without there being a showing to a court of any justification. VW Credit Leasing Ltd.. v. City of San Mateo, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200008 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2023).

“[B]ecause Officer Barbour witnessed Defendant drive his car over the center of the road, Officer Barbour had enough to support an inference that Defendant violated section 20-146, regardless of Officer Barbour’s subjective motive for stopping Defendant.” State v. McLeod, 2023 N.C. App. LEXIS 675 (Nov. 7, 2023).*

Defendant was arrested, and his backpack came with him back to the police station. It was subject to inventory. United States v. Wilborne, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 29635 (4th Cir. Nov. 7, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Inventory, Pretext, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.