{"id":4377,"date":"2010-12-29T14:23:36","date_gmt":"2010-07-01T06:57:13","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-07-01T06:57:13","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4377","title":{"rendered":"Cal.3: 30 day impoundment of a vehicle with admin review satisfies due process and the Fourth Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Under California law (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.dmv.ca.gov\/pubs\/vctop\/d06\/vc14602_6.htm\">Vehicle C. \u00a7 14602.6<\/a>), one driving a vehicle with a suspended license is subject to having his or her vehicle impounded for up to 30 days, with a provision for administrative review and mitigation of the impoundment. The statute provides due process, and, thus, no Fourth Amendment violation. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.courtinfo.ca.gov\/opinions\/documents\/A126241.PDF\">Alviso v. Sonoma County Sheriff&#8217;s Dep&#8217;t<\/a>, 186 Cal. App. 4th 198, 111 Cal. Rptr. 3d 775 (3d Dist. 2010):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Our conclusion that the prompt administrative hearing provided under sections <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dmv.ca.gov\/pubs\/vctop\/d06\/vc14602_6.htm\">14602.6<\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dmv.ca.gov\/pubs\/vctop\/d11\/vc22852.htm\">22852<\/a> satisfies the requirements of due process dispenses also with Alviso&#8217;s contention that the impoundment provisions authorize an unlawful seizure in violation of the state and federal Constitutions, which rests on the same premise&#8211;i.e., that the Constitution requires post-seizure judicial  review. Alviso does not challenge the initial seizure of his or any other vehicle under section <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dmv.ca.gov\/pubs\/vctop\/d06\/vc14602_6.htm\">14602.6<\/a>, but &#8220;only the continued warrantless retention of the vehicle for 30 days or more without post-seizure judicial review.&#8221; Since the validity of the initial seizure is therefore not at issue and our analysis under Mathews satisfies us that the administrative hearing available on two days&#8217; notice satisfies due process requirements for the government&#8217;s continued retention of the seized vehicle during the 30-day impoundment, the statutory scheme does not effect an unconstitutional seizure.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4377\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4377","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4377","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4377"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4377\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4377"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4377"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4377"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}