Can City Tow Car if it Has Lots of Unpaid Tickets?

The Coalition on Homelessness filed a civil lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) and the San Franciso Police Department to challenge the SFMTA’s policy of towing safely and lawfully parked vehicles without a warrant based solely on the accrual of unpaid parking tickets.

The Coalition on Homelessness contended that the warrantless tows are unreasonable seizures within the meaning of article 1, section 13 of the California Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

The trial court denied the SFMTA’s petition for declaratory and injunctive relief, agreeing that the towing of a vehicle was a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, which would ordinarily require a warrant.  However, the seizure without a warrant was lawful under the “community caretaking” exception to the warrant requirement.  Cady v. Dombrowski (1973) 413 U.S. 433, 441 (allowing the search of a car involved in a DUI, wherein the suspect was a police officer and the officer searching the suspect’s car stated he searched the car to locate the officer’s service revolver).

So, the Coalition on Homelessness appealed to the California Court of Appeal for the First District.

The First District reversed, agreeing that warrantless tows are not permissible under the vehicular community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.  The First District found that the SFMTA failed to show that legally parked cars with unpaid parking tickets present a threat to “public safety and the efficient movement of vehicular traffic.” S. Dakota v. Opperman (1976) 428 U.S. 364, 369.

The First Appellate District Court also rejected the SFMTA argument that their interest in deterring parking violations and nonpayment of parking fines justifies warrantless tows under the vehicular community caretaking exception.  Such deterrence did not justify warrantless tows of lawfully registered and lawfully parked vehicles.

But to appreciate this ruling on a more thorough, deeper basis, it is worthwhile to understand when and how the community caretaking exception does apply and how a city’s power over motor vehicle traffic regulation is limited.

Under Vehicle Code § 22651, the Legislature has allowed local government agencies to tow vehicles under a range of different circumstances.  Section 22651(i)(1) does permit tows for unpaid parking tickets when it is known that “the vehicle has been issued five or more notices of parking violations to which the owner or person in control of the vehicle has not responded within 21 calendar days of issuance.” Vehicle Code § 22651(i)(1).

A parking citation, however, must warn the vehicle owner that multiple citation may result in impoundment: “A notice of parking violation issued for an unlawfully parked vehicle shall be accompanied by a warning that repeated violations may result in the impounding of the vehicle.” Vehicle Code § 22651(i)(3).

Once a vehicle has been towed, local authorities may keep it in storage until its owner provides “satisfactory evidence that all parking penalties due for the vehicle . . . have been cleared.”  Vehicle Code § 22651(i)(1)(C).

Alternatively, “In lieu of furnishing satisfactory evidence that the full amount of parking violations or bail has been deposited, that person may demand to be taken without unnecessary delay before . . . a hearing examiner, for parking offenses, within the county where the offenses charged are alleged to have been committed and who has jurisdiction of the offenses and is nearest or most accessible with reference to the place where the vehicle is impounded.”  Vehicle Code § 22651(i)(3).

During such a hearing, “the storing agency shall have the burden of establishing authority for,, and the validity of, the removal.”  Vehicle Code § 22650(c).  Under § 22851.1(a), “[i]f the vehicle is impounded pursuant to subdivision (i) of Section 22651 and not released as provided in that subdivision, the vehicle may be sold . . . to satisfy” liens for towing and storage and for the outstanding parking violations. 

 

In this case, the Coalition on Homelessness argued that the SFMTA could not tow vehicles pursuant to Vehicle Code § 22651(i)(1) (allowing towing of vehicle with five or more unpaid parking tickets not paid within 21 days of issuance) without first obtaining a warrant.  At issue were the towing of cars being used as homes for “unhoused San Francisco residents.”

The First Appellate District distinguished “community caretaking” towing of illegally parked cars as allowed under Opperman, supra, for example because they posed a hazard to other drivers or an obstacle to the flow of traffic, those that were legally parked.  The court then ruled that the “community caretaking” warrant exception would not apply to legally parked cars, particularly those where such a seizure could seriously impact the car owner’s life and where such towing did not serve an immediate public need.

We present this short summary of the First Appellate District ruling to educate the reader about not just what happened in San Francisco in this case, but as a cautionary tale to familiarize the reader with the broad towing power available under the Vehicle Code in the remainder of California.