Beth wrote on Aug 16, 2008 6:18 PM:Equal treatment to human beings equally. It's the Law of the Land.

if they.... wrote on Aug 16, 2008 6:47 PM:don't have liscenses, and they don't have insurance, then their cars should be taken off of the road, otherwise these drivers will continue to thumb their noses at our laws, and continue to endanger others that share the road.

escondido citizen wrote on Aug 16, 2008 6:49 PM:Yes, they should impound vehicle if the driver does not have a license. If there is an accident and the driver does not have a such license, nor do they apparently have insurance. so yes definately impound and auction the vehicles

What controversy wrote on Aug 16, 2008 7:33 PM:Edward, just because the same whiners are at it again doesn't make it legitimate. The law should never be changed to accommodate law breakers!

Inland wrote on Aug 16, 2008 7:43 PM:Why are our law's even being questioned? YOU do not collect $200.00, but go straight to jail. This is not a game, this is LIFE!

Here we go again wrote on Aug 16, 2008 8:06 PM:Flores presents this poor me garbage again. He being against deporting criminal illegals pretty well defines him as un-american.

Wow wrote on Aug 16, 2008 8:14 PM:Councilmember Marie Waldron and her colleagues on the council are the driving force behind enforcing the law and supporting the police checkpoints and impounds. The law must be enforced and race is not an issue. Any unlicensed driver is a menace to society and is breaking the law.

Shell Answer Man wrote on Aug 16, 2008 8:22 PM:What we need is 2 sets of laws - 1 for legal residents/citizens, and another more lax set for illegals. To expect illegal aliens to follow our laws is discriminatory. Isn't that right Mr. Flores?

Larry wrote on Aug 16, 2008 8:27 PM:Legal citizens having legal licenses have no worries. Why is that so hard to understand?

Scooter wrote on Aug 16, 2008 8:40 PM:Wow, a ton of posts already; none supporting Ed and his cronies. How can you keep going for so long when you are always wrong? That's stamina!

Impound 'em all, if the proper requirements to drive in the United States of America cannot be presented when asked. No discrimination, no racial profiling, nothing but good old law enforcement.

Ed and Bill, why don't you guys go rent a good movie and share a beer. That way the two people on the face of the earth that can't see that this is just upholding the law will be together in the same place at the same time. And, you'll both agree with each other all the time as well! Sounds like a "marriage made in Heaven".

Bill wrote on Aug 16, 2008 9:24 PM:The issue isnt about whether unlicensed drrivers cars get confiscated.

This writer left off the biggest paret of the contoversey. The sale of seized vehicles to raise money for Police. Thats the part that he didnt tell us. Lopez is using this as a red herring. Lopez is a nutcase and has no credibility.

The issue here is why are the Cops selling cars through a crony who was offered a no competition contract to sell them at Police auctions without due process to the owner.

Thats the issue that makes this controversial and not whether unlicensed drivers get their car impounded.

The issue is why are the cops "stealing" cars under the guise of authority.I have no problem with them impounding the cars but never would I endorse the Cops being able to steal without DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

That invites corruption.

Ask the former Sheriff in Orange County Mike Corona.

He will tell you all about how that works.

From his soon to be jail cell.

Is that what somne of you want here in SD too?

This is bad all the way around.

Bill wrote on Aug 16, 2008 9:27 PM:Larry

How wrong you are there.

Legal citizens can get their cars stolen for a myriad of reasons just like illegals can. The cops need the dough and dont discriminate.

All without due process of law.

Thisis an archaic left over mistake from the failed drug war.

Sean wrote on Aug 16, 2008 9:36 PM:If they don't have a license, then they do not have insurance. A driver is only covered by an insurance policy if they have a valid drivers license.

To sum it all up...
Unlicensed=uninsured=bye bye car.

Easy enough.

Greg in Oceanside wrote on Aug 16, 2008 11:38 PM:Here we go again, Ed Sifuentes and his articles about the plight of the poor illegal immigrants. Here he's quoting open-border, illegal immigrant advocate Bill Flores and his claims about discrimination. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but this is not discrimination. It's called 'the law' and we are all held to it, no matter what color, creed, religion, or national origin. And no, we're not targeting illegal aliens, they just happen to be frequently affected and now they, and their supporters are whining about it.

I guess Flores wants the 30-day impound policy reduced so poor, cash-strapped illegal aliens don't have to pay the out-of-pocket towing and storage fees, and can get back out on the road as quickly as possible. Boy, doesn't that seem grand? Always looking for the cheap way out. I'm sorry, but I'm not swallowing any of it. Obviously, illegal aliens don't belong here in the first place, and more importantly they shouldn't be on our roads without licenses or insurance. I'm sure Flores supports the right for illegal aliens to obtain drivers licenses so they can then get insurance. (Here lies a 'catch-22' facing illegal aliens face.)

I'm glad Wilson's law barring illegal aliens from obtaining drivers licenses is still in effect. We're trying to close the door and make life as difficult for illegal aliens as possible, and issuing them licenses is just one more step in the door and is too 'amnesty-like.' With a license they'd be viewed by many governmental agencies as being legitimized.

As long as we can keep the license issue the way it is, it'll give law enforcement one more tool to make life miserable for illegal aliens, by allowing them the authority to arrest, impound their cars, and get them off our streets and ultimately out of our country.

But the bottom line, the 30-day impound policy needs to stay in effect and too bad if it affects illegal aliens. It's the cost of being here, and they're just going to have to deal with it. Easy solution for illegal aliens; go back to wherever they came from.

Angel wrote on Aug 17, 2008 12:52 AM:Ed, you never cease to amaze me!! What controversy? It is the law! People (all people) without licenses get their cars impounded. Period!!

Quite illegal pandering please!! If illegals break the laws they must pay the consequences!! Why don't you advice them not to drive?!!

"Bill Flores, a spokesman for El Grupo, an umbrella group for local civil rights groups, said the policy is also discriminatory."

You are just wrong Flores! How is this discriminatory!! I am sorry if the illegals you pander to happen to break laws more than others. You can't call that discriminatory.

THEY ARE LAW BREAKERS IN MANY WAYS!!! Get lost El Grupo uno!

To Shell Answer Man wrote on Aug 17, 2008 1:00 AM:You are spot on!! Flores feels there needs to be another set of laws for illegals. They for some reason should not adhere to the laws everyone else does.

I have to wonder what kind of sheriff he was. Did he look the other way if an illegal was breaking the law? Maybe!!

Bill, this American (of Mexican descent) thinks you make no sense!!! Your racism actually sickens me!

gas wrote on Aug 17, 2008 2:54 AM:Bill clarifies the real problem with these activities.

bogie wrote on Aug 17, 2008 4:00 AM:The only thing controversial about this story is the writer.

Junk Journalism wrote on Aug 17, 2008 6:45 AM:This article is not worth the paper it is printed on. Corrupt foreigners hate America, and take every opportunity to whine. What a curse on our once lovely community.

Paul wrote on Aug 17, 2008 7:17 AM:Thank you Escondido... get them off the road.

concerned wrote on Aug 17, 2008 7:56 AM:Ed, this is the second article in two weeks on this topic. Don't you have anything better to write about than the police doing what they can to protect the public from unlicensed drivers? How about doing an article on the Escondido school system having the lowest test scores in the county and maybe you could investigate the reasons why... you may be scared to find out?

Gil wrote on Aug 17, 2008 8:07 AM:To Shell Answer Man: You make a good point. We should have different levels, like in school. I guess you would say illegal-immigrants would be placed in the remedial level.

Drivers wrote on Aug 17, 2008 8:07 AM:The issue should not have anything to do with immigrants at all. The issue should remain focused on UNLICENSED and UNINSURED motorists. No license or insurance, stay off the roads!I also believe we need check points where people do bar hopping on weekends like Pacific Beach. How about a few check points in the wealthy areas like Del Mar where the BMW drivers run red lights,speed and don't stop on stop signs.

Josh wrote on Aug 17, 2008 8:09 AM:Why beat a dead horse?

Ed, If you don't follow the laws as they are written, there are consequences to pay. That means that people who never should have been on the road in the first place will have their vehicles impounded. And yes, many of them are sold because the people who have them impounded never pick them up. They don't want to go out and pay for registration and insurance. Most of these cars are in such poor condition that they should be crushed anyways. The impounding of these cars takes dangerous people and dangerous cars off the road.

Pluto wrote on Aug 17, 2008 8:11 AM:Unfortunately this article ignores the important fact that checkpoints almost always target the Latino community by being placed in those parts of town. In Vista, the Sheriffs always set up on North Santa Fe Ave, where a huge percentage of drivers are Latino. In Escondido the checkpoints are just part of a larger picture of the City Council majority doing everything they can to drive Latinos out of town. It's obvious to anyone who cares.

The Real Bill wrote on Aug 17, 2008 8:15 AM:The real shame is that these activists aren't being arrested for aiding and abetting criminals!!

ACLU lover wrote on Aug 17, 2008 8:17 AM:People who talk about "the law is the law" and such will be singing a different tune when Escondido loses this lawsuit, proving once again (remember the illegal landlord law?) that the City doesn't really care about the law. They are trying to chase Latinos out of town and are making a ton of money doing it. Thank God for civil rights lawyers!

US Citizen wrote on Aug 17, 2008 8:57 AM:Here's an idea - Get a License. If that doesn't fall into your "to do list" than we'll solve the problem for you.

Scooter wrote on Aug 17, 2008 9:30 AM:"Pluto"; Just to clarify: I have been through two check points in Escondido so far. One was at the end of Valley Parkway (coming in from Del Dios Highway), and the other one was directly across from the Police Department. I'm sure those weren't the only locations they have set up, but it certainly isn't in any area that would "target the Latino community".

Get off the soap box. We all go through these check points, and those of us that are doing what the law states are having no problems. Keep 'em up, EPD!!

To Pluto wrote on Aug 17, 2008 9:46 AM:I don't care.

fed-up wrote on Aug 17, 2008 9:55 AM:to Pluto and aclu lover. I am so tired of the race card being pulled every time you latinos think that you should have a different set of rules. It just makes me sick. Going through a check point is no big deal if you have the proper requirements. You get to drive away in your car. GET OVER IT!!!

ben wrote on Aug 17, 2008 10:45 AM:Its the liberals crying again. Dont have a license, lose your car. dont make it a race issue, its a right and wrong issue. if your going to live here, play by the rules or go home..pretty simple really...

CITIZEN AT RISK wrote on Aug 17, 2008 10:59 AM:No license - no insurance, your ride goes to car jail. GO EPD!

not fair wrote on Aug 17, 2008 11:17 AM:this policy is in every city in los angeles and I don't see what is the big deal? If you are a citizen and are still unlicensed,your car is impounded for 30 days and you get a big fine. Oh I get it:
Its kind of like that domestic partner thing on health insurance from your work. If you aren't married and have a same sex partner,you are eligible for coverage simply because the country didn't allow same sex marriage.But wait,I don't think they are breaking the law.

Concerned Mother wrote on Aug 17, 2008 11:23 AM:Why on earth should they ever get the car back? Do they have to prove that they now have a license and insurance before getting it back? It does not matter if most are illegal in the country it matters that they are law breaking potential Hit and Run drivers Off the Streets! Keep up the good work EPD.

John wrote on Aug 17, 2008 11:24 AM:If a person would not see an UNLICENSED doctor, therapist, or attorney, how is EVER justified that ANYONE can DRIVE without a VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE? A license-whether to a doctor, attorney, or a driver of a motor vehicle-indicates a COMPETENCY LEVEL is being maintained! WHY is this so hard for those who INSIST on "driving without a license" to comprehend?

To ACLU lover wrote on Aug 17, 2008 11:49 AM:I think you mean to say that they are trying to chase illegal aliens that are not supposed to be here out of town.
You see legal Latinos have nothing to fear, now do they?
Isn't it funny how they all want the right to get their drivers license but not one of them is fighting to get their legal document papers.

You don't skip step one (coming here LEGALLY) and think you are deserving of every other step after that.

Keep up the good work EPD and all the others that still think living by the laws is the right and only way to uphold a community.

Karl wrote on Aug 17, 2008 12:00 PM:Pluto @ 8:11 AM: you are an instigator. Please return to your planet of origin and leave us normal folks the heck alone.

in·sti·gate

to instigate a quarrel.

2. to urge, provoke, or incite to some action or course: to instigate the people to revolt.

go away please, us normal people can get along just fine without trouble mongers like you.

Adios

esteban wrote on Aug 17, 2008 12:33 PM:Pluto, we don't care.

I have been wrote on Aug 17, 2008 12:48 PM:thru 2 check points, one at Kit Carson Park and the other on 9th street coming off the freeway. You can't tell me that these check points were in latino neighbors and targeting latinos.

TO ACLU Lover and others wrote on Aug 17, 2008 12:49 PM:Look up vehicle code section 14602.6(a) and try to grasp its legal meaning! If you've even read the first 3 pages of this civil lawsuit you would know the suit challenges the alleged "exhorbit fines and fee's." There is no legal challenge stating you CANNOT impound the car of an unlicensed driver in California. After all thats what the law reads. Only in Oregon has the courts ruled in favor of "Community Caretaking" because of what a bone head cop did. (see Miranda v. City of Cornelius) Remember folks, this suit was already thrown out of the courts once...the civil rights lawyers had to re-write parts of the suit and refile. The courts will ultimately side with these defendants like they have in the past. (I.E. (Smith v. Santa Rosa Police Dept)

Well Sheriff Flores wrote on Aug 17, 2008 1:04 PM:if you say there is no documentation on how many latinos cars are impounded, why don't you start your survey (attend these check points)and give us an accurate account instead of giving us a bunch of lies.

Yolie wrote on Aug 17, 2008 1:20 PM:"14602.6. (a) (1) Whenever a peace officer determines that a person was driving a vehicle while his or her driving privilege was suspended or revoked, driving a vehicle while his or her driving privilege is restricted pursuant to Section 13352 or 23575 and the vehicle is not equipped with a functioning, certified interlock device, or driving a vehicle without ever having been issued a driver’s license, the peace officer MAY either immediately arrest that person and cause the removal and seizure of that vehicle or, if the vehicle is involved in a traffic collision, cause the removal and seizure of the vehicle without the necessity of arresting the person...etc etc" A vehicle so impounded shall be impounded for 30 days."
Seizure of the vehicle is NOT mandatory.

Citizens of chamber wrote on Aug 17, 2008 1:25 PM:We support the checkpoints and impounding cars of those who willfully break the law.

josh wrote on Aug 17, 2008 1:33 PM:These checkpoints are funded by grant money from the state. They do not cost the city any tax dollars. The officers on scene are doing their jobs...to catch people breaking the law. These people are driving without licenses. By impounding these cars we force the owners to register and insure them before they are taken out of impound. We are not picking on anyone we are simply making sure the streets are safer for everyone

Alf wrote on Aug 17, 2008 1:43 PM:Well, "Karl" at 12:00PM,
I have no sympathy for illegals or unlicensed drivers, but,
and here's the big but Bertha,
I do not agree with the seizure of a vehicle for 30 days IF the vehicle does not belong to the unlicensed driver (is borrowed).
While it is an error in judgment for someone to allow their car to be used by someone who does not have a valid license,
it is a crime, in my book, to punish someone other than the criminal for the offense.
What with computers and all, it's easy to spot repeat offenses on the same car and then go after the owner as well.
I also believe that this 30 day hold to a on cars is more than safety and more than "revenue enhancement", I believe that there are some shady dealings going on here.
Just like Congress authorized GWB to use force in Iraq IF NEEDED,
"Garrick said the law gives the officer discretion on whether to seize the vehicle.".
Just because I can do something, just because I am allowed to do something,
does not mean that I SHOULD do it or that doing it is wise.
As an adult, the law says I can buy as much booze as I have money for,
the fact is that I should not AND it is unwise to do it.
Regards, Alf.

texasgenes wrote on Aug 17, 2008 1:49 PM:Pluto,
Please tell me where the NON-Latino part of Escondido is and I will advise the police department to set up the check points there!

privilege and not a right wrote on Aug 17, 2008 2:46 PM:Ok, so I guess we are suppose to let illegal’s drive and get out of their way.
You know it’s all our fault, we made the law’s just to pick on them.
How rude of us, the poor illegal’s shouldn’t have to follow any laws.
Go ahead an vote in our elections, we know you do that anyways so what the heck.
Drive on our roads and risk everyone else’s property and safety because having insurance, knowing how to drive safely, and complying with air pollution and car maintenance standards should not apply to you.
To us driving is a privilege and not a right, but for you lets make it both.
Go ahead and speak your native language, we should after all learn you languages if we purport to be a free nation.
Go ahead and use our hospitals as your free health care system, we will wait until you are finished destroying the health care in the nation.
We should create a separate class of people in this country, the IDNNSR class. That’s the “I DON’T NEED NO STINKING RULES” class.
That will come with a t-shirt that says “ME SPECIAL SO TREAT ME WITH THE RESPECT I DIDN’T EARN”.
You know we should make it easier on them and set up a high speed first class rail system to Central America and South America to pick you up and drop you off wherever in the US. It’s all on our dime.

big bubba wrote on Aug 17, 2008 3:40 PM:Illegals are basically "renting" the car...When the car gets hooked, they don't get it out of impound... They just laugh at us... If you drive a car in Mexico w/o a license, the police impound your car and you never see it again...Plus they take your wallet too...

Bill wrote on Aug 17, 2008 3:48 PM:Carlsbad Councelman Martin Garrick needs a civic law lesson.

Driving is a right and not a privelage.

Our laws echo this.

Absent any disqualifying factors, the governement has no right to deny a person a license.

So how is this a privelage?

When government officials echo this "privelage" nonsense, just about anything can be justified.

Driving is a right and absent disqualifying factors, nobody can deny you a license.

Driving is a right!

Where does this nonsense come from?

From uneducated councelman like this.

The law says otherwise Mr. Garrick.

Reardon wrote on Aug 17, 2008 3:51 PM:As usual, ARF begins a cogent thought, and then allows his hatred of the Bush administration and the Iraq war to capture the cogent thought. He could turn a discussion of Casino odds into a Bush/War analogy. It is not single-mindedness – it is obsession.

I agree that the cars should not be seized. A check of the citizenship of the driver should be determined and if it is an undocumented, unlicensed driver then ICE should be called to arrest and deport the driver,

With the automobile sitting there, un-owned, THEN it should be impounded forever because there is no known owner.

QED

Murph wrote on Aug 17, 2008 4:17 PM:I say if we cannot "impound" these cars, then we simply 'tow for safekeeping'. Do the same thing,, just change the wording. If something of value is stolen from the car while it is parked on the street subsequent to a citation, the city would be liable for damages and we can't have that. This is a matter of law and order, not discrimination. Silly that we will pussyfoot around with the[m], but DEA will get violent against medical marijuana. Silly..

Paul wrote on Aug 17, 2008 4:18 PM:anyone know what would happen to a US citizen driving without the proper paperwork in Mexico?

The Wizard of Oz wrote on Aug 17, 2008 4:52 PM:The lawsuit names every county except the one Escondido is in....San Diego.

Talking Points wrote on Aug 17, 2008 5:28 PM:Apparently Ed once again failed to look beyond the open border crowd's talking points before parroting them. The Legislative Council advises the legislature on future laws, it has nothing to do with interpreting current law, and often includes speculation and discussion of the opinions of different parties. Opinions from the Legislative Council are pretty much meaningless in court. An Attorney General's opinion would have some relevance, the Legislative Council's has none.

simple solution wrote on Aug 17, 2008 5:57 PM:Cool, Esco has found a way to kill two birds with one stone. Impound the cars and then they won't be parked on the front lawns.

Bill Bill Bill wrote on Aug 17, 2008 6:17 PM:After reading all of your completely illogical comments, I had to laugh when you called Councilman Garrick, a highly intelligent individual, uneducated. By the way Bill, it is councilman, not councelman.

to alf wrote on Aug 17, 2008 6:33 PM:It is a violation of vehicle code to allow an unlicensed driver to drive your vehicle:

" cvc 14604. (a) No owner of a motor vehicle may knowingly allow another person to drive the vehicle upon a highway unless the owner determines that the person possesses a valid driver's license that authorizes the person to operate the vehicle. For the purposes of this section, an owner is required only to make a reasonable effort or inquiry to determine whether the prospective driver possesses a valid driver's license before allowing him or her to operate the owner's vehicle. An owner is not required to inquire of the department whether the prospective driver possesses a valid driver's license. "

It is also a citable offense to allow an unlicensed driver to drive. The "not a crime" defense doesnt work, as you tried to apply it, as the law CLEARLY states it IS a CRIME to allow an unlicensed driver to drive. Please read the laws before you post a half-researched statement. No one buys your arguement.

lamigra wrote on Aug 17, 2008 7:00 PM:Excuse me, but Prop 187 was not ruled unconstitutional "by the courts". It was ruled unconstitutional by Marianna Pfaelzer. a left-wing judge appointed by Jimmy Carter, after she held it under injuction until Pete Wilson left office. It has never been appealed because Bill Lockyer and Jerry Brown, both Democrats have refused to honor the will of the voters.

Bobby wrote on Aug 17, 2008 8:07 PM:When amnesty comes, and my considered opinion is that it will, what a slap in the face to the average American citizen and legal resident it will be. Let us be honest, illegal aliens from coast to coast, can just about do what they want right now in this nation. The traitorous (largely democratic) politicians we keep electing, the corrupt business community, the worthless(to Americans)administration, the liberal lawless judges, and finally the unconcernedness with their nation most Americans exhibit--all these forces have practically created a defacto amnesty already. Just tell me what an illegal alien cannot do in the U.S. when push comes to shove? They even beat old Americans, who protest illegal immigration and nothing happens to them.

Yes,everything is going as smoothly, as the traitors in the U.S. have planned, including the Mexican embassies in almost every single state, and two in some. What makes Americans think amnesty isn't going to come? While Americans are kept worried by our so called leaders about everything and anything going on in the rest of the world, we are collapsing at home.

jvc wrote on Aug 17, 2008 8:40 PM:No controversy here! When your car gets impounded for whatever reason ,you get a ticket or fine and your car gets a fine also so to speak by getting impounded! No double jeopardy here!

Jack wrote on Aug 17, 2008 8:55 PM:THANK YOU Escondido PD for doing your job. If you are illegal in this country, GO HOME (with or without your car). I hope they start doing the checks EVERY day.

Jim wrote on Aug 17, 2008 9:03 PM:So now that pretty much everyone has had a clue about these checkpoints and the consequences when you break the law, why are the idiots without licenses still driving and thinking they are going to get away with it.
If they are going to be that selfish and not care about anybodies safety I say raise the fine even more, this obviously isn't enough to stop these criminals from obeying the law.

The hell with these crime promoting latino activists that are a bunch of criminals themselves.

Buzzm wrote on Aug 17, 2008 9:07 PM:If they are illegal, or have no license, or have no insurance, by all means impound their cars.

THERE WILL BE NO AMNESTY!!!

OUR ACCEPTABLE IMMIGRATION REFORM

#1. Secure the Border!!!
#2. Mandate E-Verify for ALL Employees!!!
#3. Mandate E-Verify for ANY Benefit!!!
#4. Stop the Underground Economy!!!
#5. End Birthright Citizenship for Illegals!!!
......and make it retroactive!!!
#6. End Chain Migration!!!
#7. Make English our Official Language!!!
#8. Cut Off Federal Funds to Sanctuary Cities!!

NOTHING MORE!!! NOTHING LESS!!!

To Larry wrote on Aug 17, 2008 9:24 PM:It should not matter if people are here legally or not. The California Driver's license is not a state funded benefit. This information can be found on page 12 of the Driver's handbook.

Larry wrote on Aug 17, 2008 10:06 PM:Massive unfettered illegal immigration is destroying our nation before our very eyes. The real opposition to the impounding of vehicles from drivers caught with no licenses comes from self appointed "Latino leaders". The truth is these quislings LOVE the illegal alien invasion of the United States and they don't want no stinking badges standing in the way. They have an agenda to seize power and control of the American Southwest using migratory tactics to put the needed "boots on the ground".

Observer wrote on Aug 17, 2008 10:27 PM:Everyone is focused only on working on the on the consequences and not the source, the talk is about "illegals" being law breakers, criminals. Where are they getting the money to put gas in their cars? To buy the clothes they wear while driving their cars. The issue and answer is thru ECONOMICS. Human nature is to survive and MONEY makes the world spin. Obviously, people are hiring illegals, that is why they are here. Just like everyone who makes money, spends money. With the current HIGH LEVELS of unemployment there has been a mass exodus of illegals. That should be our real concern. You may sit here all high and mighty about sending "those illegals back to where they came from". Where will you go when you cannot find a job? FYI - There is a huge amount of manufacturing transferring to China to Mexico.
Maybe the real issue is how do we increase the purchasing power of the "illegals", keep the money here in the US, generating jobs for everyone. Instead of trying to steal their cars and illegally reselling them to generate capital for the police department. Careful with whom you are trying to send HOME, a lot of people our losing theirs. Just food for thought, this is just is a piece of a much larger puzzle.

Vista Watchcat wrote on Aug 17, 2008 10:56 PM:What's the number of accidents caused by unlicensed drivers compared to licensed? I understand there is a law, but I keep hearing they, the unlicensed, are endangering us. Well, I've been hit twice in my life, both times by a licensed driver. One a teenage girl, and the other a 50 year old man. Does that mean we should keep older men and young women off the road?If the Escondido PD says it's for our safety, where are the numbers showing that?

Vista Watchcat wrote on Aug 17, 2008 11:00 PM:By the way, how many cars do they need to impound in order to afford the overtime for the parade?

Greg in Oceanside wrote on Aug 17, 2008 11:32 PM:Why does Ed Sifuentes keep pandering to the whims of Bill Flores? (I'll bet they have each other on speed-dial.) Why doesn't Ed do more investigative stories on the scholastic disparity and low performance of Latino students in our schools? Why doesn't he do more stories about the huge dropout problem plaguing Latino youth, where less than half actually graduate? I'm also wondering why Ed doesn't do any articles about the unlawful, unacceptable, and disgusting practice of overcrowding in our neighborhoods and the cramming of multiple families and people in single-family homes, committed primarily by Latino immigrants? Why doesn't Ed do more articles about Latino gangs and the rampant crime, violence, graffiti, drugs, domestic violence and abuse that is so pervasive in the Latino community?

Instead, Ed continues to focus the vast majority of his reporting on how bad illegal aliens have it here and how they're being unfairly targeted by law enforcement. What Ed Sifuentes, Bill Flores, Enrique Morones, et al. don't seem to understand, is that laws apply to everyone and aren't unfair. One should ask the question; who's most likely to commit hit-and-run accidents? Logic says those who are unlicensed and uninsured are prime candidates and checkpoints are set up to get them off our roads. And since illegal aliens don't have licenses or insurance, when they are stopped, they are hit hard.

Is this unfair? No, it's just one of the many risks illegal aliens face when living here and not abiding by our laws.

franks wrote on Aug 18, 2008 12:08 AM:Of course your car should not be impounded for 30 days if you are driving without a license. It should be impounded PERMANENTLY!! This is a no-brainer.

DAVE wrote on Aug 18, 2008 12:52 AM:This is all a big lie there are plenty of insurance companies selling insurance. They advertise on radio & telivision you don't need a license or dosent matter how many tickets or drunk drivings you have they will still insure you. call adrians insurance for one,but their are hundreds of them out there quit lieing to the public.

Bill wrote on Aug 18, 2008 1:49 AM:I have to laugh when someone says that citing the law, as it is written is illogical.

The Carlsbad councilman (better?) is the one who got it wrong and not me.

Driving is a qualified right and not a privelage. That is the law. If Mr. Garrick has an education, it certainly isnt in law.

This is basic stuff and an elitist attitude.

Just how is citing the law as it is written illogical again?

Change the law if you dont like it but hes sworn to uphold it, not to reinterpret it in a way that fits his agenda.

Lame!

Alf wrote on Aug 18, 2008 3:58 AM:Well, "to alf" at 6:33PM,
you are right to quote the CVC.
I suggest that you read it again, this time carefully.
"cvc 14604. (a) No owner of a motor vehicle may KNOWINGLY allow" (emphasis mine), KNOWINGLY is THE key word.
The CVC does not require that a person checks with the DMV.
I have lent my car to people who I know to have licenses which have not expired and are real, whether that license is currently suspended is something that involves trust.
NO, it is NOT a crime to let someone who is in possession of a REAL, unexpired license drive your car IF you have no reason to believe that the license is suspended or revoked.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Aug 18, 2008 4:10 AM:Part 2 - Well, "to alf" at 6:33PM,
If you will note, in my original post I said -
"What with computers and all, it's easy to spot repeat offenses on the same car and then go after the owner as well.".
Neither one of us are wrong.
If someone is letting their car be used by unlicensed driverS, and getting it out of impound more than once surely shows that, THEN the owner can also be cited.
Please don't try tell me that you have never found out, after the fact, that someone you thought was a "friend" of yours had abused your trust about something.
I won't buy it.
Regards, Alf.

jvc wrote on Aug 18, 2008 4:25 AM:It is clear from these bloggs that
traffic safety checkpoints is welcomed
by all as a response to illegal
immigration!The response for stopping the flow of illegals should have its emphasis at the boarder rather than the streets of America!

thistle wrote on Aug 18, 2008 5:39 AM:Guys and gals - it all goes back to the reality that illegal aliens have more rights than U. S. citizens. And that is why California is going bankrupt. We cannot afford to bestow free medical care, free education etc. to millions of people who are not citizens and who do not belong here in the first place. Hello - "third world status"!

Equal law wrote on Aug 18, 2008 6:59 AM:All vehicles should be registered, insured, and drivers have a license. It is the law for everyone. Mexicans think they don't need to obey our laws and that they can get away with nearly everything. This is why your country is so screwed up, a better world starts at home with each person. This practice affects everyone,but if it gets more latinos then tough.

Mann wrote on Aug 18, 2008 7:22 AM:As a person of Mexican descent, who has Impounded vehicles for no drivers license, Who cares if they have to pay $1,200 to get their car back. I've seen unlicensed drivers murder innocent people!

I have to have a drivers license and insurance, what is wrong with demanding that "everyone" else have the same? My suggestion to the undocumented that can't obtain a DL would be for them to pay a $250 Driver certification course and issue them a Foreiner's DL

State wrote on Aug 18, 2008 7:31 AM:whose cars are towed legal are not legal

Mann is right wrote on Aug 18, 2008 7:53 AM:serious injuries/deaths have resulted from car accidents. (We all know this.) So what is the difference in one driver being insured and one not ? The uninsured driver DOES NOT CARE. That is a danger to all drivers! How sad our country has been reduced to this!

To Bill wrote on Aug 18, 2008 7:54 AM:Spell Check!

Craig wrote on Aug 18, 2008 8:07 AM:To: Vista Watchcat- Did both of those licensed drivers that hit you have insurance? Did they try to run away from the accident scene? That is the difference we are talking about.

Andrew wrote on Aug 18, 2008 8:16 AM:The way the author uses adjective "controversial" is deceitful. Mr. Sifuentes, known for his bias in favor of illegal aliens of Latino extraction calls enforcement of the laws broken notoriously by Latino illegal aliens "controversial".

Enforcing the laws against drunk drivers (Latino "excel" in this category), unlicensed drivers (same as above) and uninsured drivers (same as above) is NOT controversial but is the only logical answer to numerous violations of these laws by those who disrespect our laws about as much as they disrespect our border, culture, and language.

Here is a list of obviously controversial things that Mr. Sifuentes never calls as such. Chauvinist, if not outright racist "Latino" organizations MEChA and The Council of The Race ARE controversial. Their calls to not enforce the border and reward the immigration lawbreakers with American visas and - eventually - citizenship ARE controversial. Ambushes on groups of American patriots who disapprove mass invasion of our country by millions of Latino illegal aliens ARE controversial. And the decision of North County Times - an American (yet) newspaper to let Mr. Sifuentes publish his article there IS as controversial as are his pro-illegal alien articles.

Is NCT racist wrote on Aug 18, 2008 8:27 AM:against non latino citizens? Does other papers have Latino Round Tables?

Call EPD wrote on Aug 18, 2008 8:29 AM:demand they stop this towing of cars, and demand that EPD brings in ICE to remove illegal aliens with Immigration check points.

While we are wrote on Aug 18, 2008 8:33 AM:at this, how is it DMV is registering cars to people without a license? And how is it that people are getting around DMV law that states anyone from another state or country that is doing business in California, (legal business) is required within 10 days to get a Califrnia Drivers License? And how is it the tow yards are releasing these cars to people with legal drivers license who are NOT registered owners of the impounded vehicles?

Karl wrote on Aug 18, 2008 8:49 AM:Alf, I agree with the gist of your post. Since the wording is "may impound" it would follow logically that some are not impounded. I have not seen an article or statistics relating to a percentage of cars that are impounded for the offense of no dl, insurance or registration to date. Perhaps an investigative story on the percentage of impounded vehicles including the ones stopped outside of the checkpoint would be enlightening.

I in no way advocate wholesale impoundings when the law clearly leaves wiggle room for people who make an honest mistake. I am however a staunch advocate of getting cheaters off the road ASAP. This article for me is written from the wrong perspective. With Ed, it's always an illegal immigration issue. The issue is illegal drivers not illegal immigrants (although the former seem to be a major contributor to the problem).

I was hit several years a go by a white caucasian male and he was clearly at fault as stated in the police report. He had no DL, Registration or Insurance. He contacted an attorney and in a strange twist of fate, he sued me for damages. My insurance carrier advised me that it would be cheaper to settle than to litigate (since I was the only one involved that carried insurance). In very strong words (I believe there may have been a few F bombs) I told them no way. The guy lost his suit and I fired my carrier when the policy lapsed.

It is so wrote on Aug 18, 2008 8:50 AM:suprising to me, that the media wonders why reader subscriptions are down, yet continually try to anger it's American readers? Is it any wonder people now go to Internet and talk radio to get the truth? To listen to both sides without the main media calling Americans morons?

To Bill wrote on Aug 18, 2008 8:55 AM:First, you called Garrick a "councelman", then "councilman"....wrong on both counts! Did you read the article? The article clearly states that Garrick is an Assemblyman. Step away from the keyboard before you lose even more credibility!

Alf wrote on Aug 18, 2008 9:32 AM:Well, "Karl" at 8:49AM on the 18th,
your experience proves an old saying that goes something like this -
You can sue anyone at any time for any reason, the only question is whether you'll win.
Obviously that guy had heard the same thing and, fortunately for you, he did not win.
You are right about the author as well.
Although the inspiration may be largely to nail illegals, the checkpoints are in response to increased accidents and incidents involving those who are DUI or illegal or both.
Back in the 1970s, the CHP would set up safety checkpoints on city streets, most often around a curve so that you couldn't avoid them without making an illegal U-turn. They were a PITA, but that's life.
Regards, Alf.

Jimi wrote on Aug 18, 2008 10:03 AM:Asset forfeture is commonly used in drug cases. Impounds are not asset forfeture, it's a fine. So maybe you don't have $1200 to get your $250 junker back, but that's life. Asset forfeture is based on illegally obtained income. This is also true of all illegals. Asset forfeture should be applied to every illegal alien arrested. Nothing will stop illegal aliens faster that taking their ill-obtained assets away from them, including cars, homes, cash. Only the fearful pols are in the way of this, after all, the equal protection clause in the constitution requires we apply asset forfeture to illegal aliens as well as drug dealers.

Thousands of vehicles wrote on Aug 18, 2008 10:14 AM:I doubt it, I went to the EPD news site and so far this year alone under threee hundred impounded, where does the THOUSANDS of cars impounded come from? The author can't count?

Vista Watchcat wrote on Aug 18, 2008 10:50 AM:Well Craig,
Craig
[-] wrote on Aug 18, 2008 8:07 AM:To: Vista Watchcat- Did both of those licensed drivers that hit you have insurance? Did they try to run away from the accident scene? That is the difference we are talking about.

Tell me how this made me any safer? The EPD says this is for our safety. How much safer are we?

To observer wrote on Aug 18, 2008 11:06 AM:Who's giving these illegal freeloaders money? Our government in the form of welfare, food stamps, medical freebies, education (that they don't care about) the catholic church encourages them to keep having babies they can't afford, that is why you find them all day loitering.
Until our do nothing government stops all benefits to illegals, the freeloaders will hang out and continue to destroy this country.
I am doing my part in this giveaway by our government, I no longer pay our unconstitutional taxes and will continue to not pay as long as they give money away to foreigners. It's MY money and I will not be a traitor and hand it over to the invasion.

enough wrote on Aug 18, 2008 11:17 AM:I pay $2,600 a year in car insurance
for 3 drivers plus smog checks- We have a small income and two old but licensed cars. It's hard on the budget but we follow the law. These folks who skip the law hurt the environment- these cars don't meet the smog standards. If they don't have a lic. or insurance I doubt if they get the car checked. I don't care who they are or what color their skin is - they cheat.

Craig wrote on Aug 18, 2008 12:45 PM:to Vista Watchcat: Since you aren't able to figure this out for yourself, let me help you. There is a larger number of drivers on the road, most of which are licensed and have gone through some sort of training. If we remove unlicensed, uneducated drivers this decreases your chances of getting into an accident. Your two accidents involved legal drivers, which make up the majority of all drivers, but there are too many people being hit by drivers that should not be on the road, or even in this country. If their vehicles are impounded and thus they can't drive, that makes the road safer for everyone.

Vista Watchcat wrote on Aug 18, 2008 2:08 PM:To Craig, let me restate, since you can't seem to read. EPD is saying the checkpoints are for our safety. Have they decreased the number of accidents or drunk drivers on the road? If they haven't, then the check points seem to be a waste of time. Or, since impounding and the fees associated seem to be so high, a backdoor revenue stream for the city.

bogie wrote on Aug 18, 2008 2:36 PM:Vista Watchcat you are the one that needs to re-read. Craig specificaly answered your question on safety and the odds associated with it.

Esco-Family wrote on Aug 18, 2008 3:32 PM:We like the checkpoints. It's good to see the officers enforcing the law in a way that is paying off.

To all the whiners on this post: Would you want your kids to get hit by one of these unlicensed/drunk drivers, regardless of race?

I doubt you would.

We Need A Checkpoint wrote on Aug 20, 2008 5:31 PM:PLEASE EPD, set up a checkpoint in my neighborhood!!!
Mission & Ash would be GREAT!

Dave wrote on Aug 30, 2008 8:59 PM:I love all these posts . . .just remember . . a law is a law . . .but people like Flores think Latinos don't have to obey the laws of this country. To the Escondido police, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! To all the Latinos living four families to one "single" family dwelling - like at the end of my cul-de-sac - GO HOME!