Sweet Home resident Wayne Hadland claims that the impounding of his vehicle by police was unconstitutional and is challenging the impound in Circuit Court in Albany.
Sweet Home police towed Hadland’s 1987 Chevrolet S-10 pickup Oct. 30 after the friend of his daughter drove it to Hadland’s daughter’s home and parked it in the driveway.
That action occurred after a police officer responded to a report of a reckless, speeding driver on a residential street, Police Chief Bob Burford said. The complaining resident directed the officer to the vehicle, which had stopped at a nearby residence. The officer contacted the driver, Eric Steinborn and a passenger as they were unloading groceries from the car.
“After investigation, the officer determined Steinborn had a suspended license, had been driving recklessly, putting others in danger and was under the influence of alcohol,” Burford said.
“The driver told the officer he was driving because the female passenger was in no condition to drive. The driver was subsequently arrested and the vehicle was impounded per state law.
“He was processed, booked and released from custody one hour and 13 minutes later, after his blood alcohol had been tested at .15, nearly twice the legal limit. Because the vehicle was impounded, the public and the police were assured that he would not be driving that vehicle again that night and that a valid, insured, owner would be the only one who could obtain the vehicle.”
Hadland, the registered owner, later retrieved the vehicle and asked for a hearing, Burford said. Following state statute, a hearing was held to determine if the officer had probable cause to impound the vehicle and if the towing and storage charges were reasonable, Burford said. After hearing Hadland’s argument, the hearings officer, Municipal Court Judge Larry Blake determined the impound to be valid.
To retrieve his vehicle, Hadland paid a $125 administrative fee and $205 to the towing company.
Steinborn pleaded no contest and entered diversion on the drunken driving charge. A reckless driving charge was reduced to careless driving, and he pleaded no contest.
Hadland, a retired lawyer and engineer, contends that his vehicle was subjected to an unreasonable seizure in violation of his rights protected constitutionally by the Fourth Amendment.
He points to a 2005 federal Ninth Circuit Court decision, Jorge Miranda and Irene Miranda vs. City of Cornelius and Acme Towing, where the court held that the impounding of the vehicle based on a charge of no driver’s license was unconstitutional.
State law permits police officers to impound vehicles, but “the point that I’m making with you right now is it doesn’t matter what Oregon law is, or California, or Washington, or Nevada law is,” Hadland told The New Era. The practice violates the federal Fourth Amendment and constitutional rights, according to the Ninth Circuit Court, which presides over most western states, he said.
The city attorney “keeps citing these state statutes,” Hadland said. “They’re irrelevant.”
Miranda identified two causes allowing police officers to impound vehicles, he said, while also addressing a separate due process issue.
One is when police are investigating criminal activity, he said. They may impound a vehicle to search for evidence when they have prior knowledge that “there’s probably something there.”
The second is under what’s called “community caretaking,” he said. An officer may impound a vehicle when it is a hazard or to protect it from vandalism if no valid driver can move it.
In this case, the vehicle was not impounded until the vehicle was home, Hadland said. The community caretaking doctrine never applied.
The officer wasn’t investigating, Hadland said. “He wanted to do it as punishment.”
“The city of Sweet Home has an aggressive ‘impound whenever possible’ policy that provides a steady flow of money into its coffers, and it may be unhappy if it is restrained by the Fourth Amendment,” Hadland wrote in his petition to Circuit Court.
Sweet Home Police Department typically impounds more than 300 vehicles per year, often close to one per day. For 300 impounds, the city collects $37,500 in administrative fees. A full-time police officer costs in the neighborhood of $80,000 per year.
The circuit court will review the case, Hadland said, and the judge may choose to hold a hearing, ask for briefs from the attorneys involved, ask for further information or a variety of other options.
In a brief for an administrative hearing before Judge Blake, City Attorney Robert Snyder wrote that the policy, based on Oregon law, authorizes impoundment at a drunken driving arrest “not as a punitive sanction but rather a specific attempt to protect other motorists upon the public highways of the state.”
The state has set up a process “to ensure that an intoxicated driver does not have his vehicle available until it is shown to a police agency that valid insurance exists, a valid license exists and most of all, the owner, driver or other non-intoxicated person picks up the vehicle,” Snyder said. “If left at the home or elsewhere, this offers to the intoxicated driver a chance to go home and start again before the alcohol affecting him has totally left his person.”
The drunken driver was processed by police in one hour and 13 minutes, Snyder said. Impounding the vehicle is less costly than holding the driver up to four hours and spending other limited public resources. It is a less intrusive way to protect the public.
“Therefore impounding the vehicle for the safety of the driving public is lawful and logical,” he said. “It helps solve the problem of a repeat offender on the same ‘drunk’ because not only does the public not want an intoxicated driver on the road, I believe most defendants would agree once they sober up. The expense to the intoxicated driver of impound fees is a small price to pay for the public safety it ensures.”
He believes that the impound can be justified either by community caretaking or by the broader inherent police powers to protect the safety of the public, he said. “The Miranda Court does not totally dismiss the use of using an impoundment as a deterrent. It just cannot be the sole reason. Here it is not.
“The impoundment is for public safety at or near the time of the arrest concerning itself with the same intoxicated episode of the driver.”
Denying police the ability to impound a vehicle in cases like this, if it “becomes common knowledge that your driveway is a safe harbor, then you will see cases where the DUII driver does not stop until he reaches his own house, endangering the public and anyone else involved,” Snyder said.
“Police officers work within existing law,” Burford said. “If the courts later determine we shouldn’t impound these vehicles, then we’ll follow whatever new rules are established.”
The city was required to submit documents from the administrative hearing by Friday.
According to Circuit Court records, Snyder has requested a hearing.
Hadland is being represented by Portland attorney Emily S. Courtney on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, he said.